1951-02-20

Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) asked two questions on the orders of the day, and I agreed to try to answer them today on motions; with your permission I shall do so at this time.
The first question was:
Will the minister indicate what action, if any, has been taken by the federal authorities to implement this undertaking with the Newfoundland fishermen?
The hon. member was referring to an undertaking that had been made on October 27 last with respect to shore fishing. On October 27 last I made an announcement to the fishermen of Newfoundland regarding Labrador fish. At that time the merchants would not accept this type of fish from the fishermen, and the federal government, through the prices support board, gave a guarantee to the trade that would allow them to pay fishermen $7 per quintal on genuine Labrador fish. At the same time I announced that no immediate action was being taken on shore fish, but an assurance was given to the fishermen that we would review the shore fish situation as the marketing season advanced and as the results of the market operations became clearer. We have every intention of fulfilling this promise to make a comprehensive review of the prices paid to shore fishermen.
In reply to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, I am able to say that the prices support board has been making preparations to investigate the shore fish prices. Hon. members will understand that the final export price of this commodity cannot be truly determined until the end of the export season, which normally runs into June. Likewise, with the late fishing last fall the total volume of shore fish was not then known. Accordingly, as I indicated in October, we are preparing our investigation as the season advances.
For the first time in Newfoundland we hope to provide complete and accurate information with respect to prices received by the fishermen for the various grades and
sizes of shore fish. We shall ask each fisherman to provide our board, on an appropriate form, with a statement of the prices received from his merchants for the various grades and sizes. Already we have taken steps to prepare the necessary forms, to enlist the services of the dominion bureau of statistics and the post office; and already one of our accountants is in Newfoundland helping to prepare for this comprehensive survey.
This morning I received a wire from the Hon. J. R. Smallwood, premier of Newfoundland, indicating that the provincial government intends to appoint a royal commission to examine fishermen's prices in that province. This is the first intimation I have had of any such intention. I did make a commitment to the fishermen of Newfoundland last October to review the shore fish situation, a fact that was known to all in Newfoundland concerned with fisheries, and we shall proceed to make good this particular investigation. The facts provided should go far to answer the questions raised by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) in the house on the 6th of February. It will be clear that I am in no way defending the prices paid by the merchants in Newfoundland to the fishermen for shore fish. Until the true facts are known, it is dangerous to draw conclusions from only a few cases, and our investigations are designed to produce these facts on a large scale.
The further question asked by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was:
Will the minister indicate what action the department has taken for the development of Newfoundland's fisheries?
Because so much of Newfoundland's trade is in salted fish, and because marketing problems proved difficult from 1949 onwards, it was necessary to provide some props to that trade while seeking other means to develop and modernize the fishing industry. A series of steps had to be taken to support the older salt fish branch of the Newfoundland fishery. Arrangements had to be made with the United Kingdom for the sale of Newfoundland salted cod to -European markets with payments in sterling. No other Canadian industry, including the maritime salt fish trade, has such a privilege. In March, 1950, in order to relieve the surplus of Newfoundland salt fish, the federal government provided $600,000 to UNICEF as a grant. The entire order, some 38,000 quintals, was filled

Fisheries
from Newfoundland and ordinary Newfoundland markets were relieved to that extent. In June, 1950, because fish was being left in fishermen's hands, the prices support board purchased 11,387 quintals of salted cod from fishermen. Six hundred and sixty-one fishermen had fish left on their hands, and the prices support board paid them $85,243. In October, 1950, the federal government was again requested to assist the trade, and, as I mentioned earlier, the prices support board gave a guarantee on Labrador fish. The federal government's loss on this guarantee cannot yet be assessed.
While providing these aids to the salt fish trade, our department concerned itself with the more general problem of development, and a year ago I recommended to Premier Smallwood that together we establish a fisheries development committee for Newfoundland. This committee has recently been set up, and it begins its operations this week under the chairmanship of the Hon. Sir Albert J. Walsh, chief justice of Newfoundland. This committee is composed of representatives of federal and provincial governments with two representing the trade and two the fishermen. These representatives are Mr. Raymond Gushue, of St. John's, chairman of the Newfoundland fisheries board, representing the Department of Fisheries; Mr. Clive Planta, St. John's, provincial deputy minister of fisheries, representing the provincial government; Mr. H. A. Russell, St. John's, president of Northlantic Fisheries Limited; and Mr. H. A. Dawe, Port Union, president of the Fishermen's Union Trading Company Limited, representing the trade. Mr. George Groves, of Bonavista, and Captain Williams, of Grand Bank, represent the fishermen.
This committee will examine fisheries resources of the province, the economics of the existing methods of fishing and of processing, and will recommend a program capable of implementation by both federal and provincial governments and those engaged in the fishing industry. The recommendations will be based on the respective responsibilities of each party and will be carried through by each party taking an agreed share in the final program of development.
There is a great change going on in Newfoundland. There are new frozen fish plants in St. John's and elsewhere, and indeed the southwest coast is becoming dotted with them. In the salt fish business many plants have installed the mechanical driers, designed by our experimental station in Halifax, for heavy salted fish. There are thirteen of these now on the island. There remains the problem at the northeast and east coasts, the

improvement and the greater standardization of the quality of light salted fish. We propose to instal in Newfoundland this summer a pilot plant for the artificial drying of light salted fish.
As these driers get into operation and as frozen fish plants extend, it becomes possible for the trade to buy raw fish from fishermen and then to produce a quality of product under control. Since the fisherman then does not need to make his own fish, he can spend more time fishing if means are resolved tc help him equip himself better.
The federal department has given attention to this question also. Last summer we had two Cape Island type boats from southwest Nova Scotia demonstrate their operations in the Bonavista area, and the fishermen there have shown a great deal of interest in this particular technique. We shall continue this experiment this year out of Bonavista, putting the test boats on a purely commercial basis. The improvement of the boats and the gear of the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland is a major problem, and intimately tied in with the whole development program. We in the federal government do have a vote to help finance fishermen in the construction of draggers and longliners, and we are prepared to modify the present regulations to enable the help to go perhaps to boats of the 45-foot class and up.
We shall send to Newfoundland this summer three of our most experienced field technical men to advise industry on all matters relating to the production and preservation of fish. In addition, our top salt fish expert will be there to help answer the problems of drying light salted shore fish and to organize the pilot plant experiment mentioned above.
Since confederation the amount of money spent on fisheries administration in Newfoundland has doubled, and in addition the provincial government is doing its share. Our staff has increased from around 200 to 300 men to help in the administration, inspection and protection throughout the province. We have added several new vessels to the local patrol fleet, these being fitted with echo sounders to help locate herring and other species. We have made considerable improvement to bait depots, and have plans for installing one of the most up-to-date type. We are beginning a daily fishermen's broadcast, in collaboration with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to give fishermen round the island information on market conditions, weather, to provide mercy calls and all other matters of information interesting to them.

We shall co-operate fully with the committee just set up to study and make recommendations for the future development of Newfoundland's fisheries, and our biologists, technicians and economists will be available as working parties. I mention all of these things to indicate the high priority we are ready to give to the people of Newfoundland. Of course there are other provinces also requiring attention, none of which can be neglected. Our resources are not unlimited, but we are ready to co-operate to the fullest to help Newfoundland maximize the great advantages it has in fisheries production.


Mr. Higgins:: I was not quite clear whether the minister said that arrangements had been made for convertibility of sterling so far as salt fish is concerned. I should also like to ask him whether he was consulted by the premier of Newfoundland about the matter of the appointment of the royal commission.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The answer to the second question is no. As I intimated in my statement, we knew nothing about the appointment of this royal commission until we today received a wire from Premier Smallwood and saw also a clipping from a Newfoundland paper. If Mr. Smallwood goes ahead with his plan as suggested, it may do no more than delay our start. We cannot interfere with his plans; we will go ahead and make our survey just the same.
As to convertibility, that was arranged for the current sales.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is arranged now?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: I want to thank the minister for his most interesting statement, which contains a great deal of material our people will be glad to get. Did he say who was to be in charge of the investigation into the prices paid the fishermen, and did he say when that investigation will begin?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Our own fisheries prices
support board will be in charge of the investigation.


William Joseph Browne: And when will the investigation begin?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I said we were ready to start as soon as the returns were pretty well in, so far as fish are concerned. Some of the fish is still in the hands of fishermen, and almost two thirds is still in the hands of merchants. As soon as we can get a reasonably clear picture of the situation, we will start.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION ACT



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE RIGHT OF ASYLUM FOR POLITICAL REFUGEES

Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to amend the Immigration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Bona Arsenault: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the right of asylum recognized in international law for political refugees, who may apply to a judge of a superior court to have this right recognized and declared. According to the provisions of this bill, judges of superior courts may decide whether or not this right should be granted in particular cases.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence a question, arising out of the broadcast he made last evening on the program "Press Conference"? Did NATO decide upon or announce the strength of Canada's contribution to the western European force without first obtaining the consent of the government of Canada and a statement that Canada was willing and able to supply the force mentioned?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: No, sir.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then would the minister mind saying what was the mistake to which he referred in his broadcast last evening?


Brooke Claxton: I said that the agency of NATO, namely, the standing group, had independently arrived at the figure subsequently suggested to us.


George Randolph Pearkes: But they did not announce it?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Mr. Harkness:: If I may ask a supplementary question, would the minister mind telling the house what the figure was for which NATO asked?


Brooke Claxton: No, sir, I cannot.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question, of

Business of the House
which I have not given him notice. How are the proposed expenditures under the Colombo plan, which were recently announced, to be made?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this matter tomorrow.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Can
the Minister of Trade and Commerce give any assurance that in future the prairies and the maritime provinces, and I refer particularly to Saskatchewan, will be given greater consideration in the allocation of defence contracts?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That is rather like asking a man if he will stop beating his wife. We endeavour to distribute defence purchasing as equitably as possible as among all sources of defence materials. That has been and will continue to be our policy.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Does the minister know that Saskatchewan received only one-tenth of one per cent of the contracts let in the first nine months of last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend can tell me what proportion of the production of the factories of all Canada could come from the factories of Saskatchewan.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It would be a great deal
more than that.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to ask the minister a question, based upon a report appearing in the press to the effect that the premier of Saskatchewan has forwarded to the minister a list of the facilities and resources in his province for the production of defence materials. Has any report been received by the minister from any of the governments of the maritime provinces, similar to the list received from the government of Saskatchewan, outlining the facilities and the resources within those provinces for the production of goods under defence preparedness contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not received lists from the maritime provinces, for the very good reason that I think the people of the maritime provinces know that the department is well aware of their productive capacity and know that we are in the habit of making use of that capacity. I presume the reason the list was sent in from Saskatchewan is that it is

a very large province with very few industries, and we might have overlooked one or two sources of supply in the vast open spaces of that province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did not the minister suggest to the premier of Saskatchewan that he send in a list of the facilities in his province?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I did; for the reasons stated.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Can the minister say whether any contracts for horse meat have been let in Saskatchewan?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: At this time may I refer to two matters which I deem of considerable importance. The first is with regard to questions asked on calling the orders of the day. Until yesterday questions on the order paper were not answered, and accordingly I allowed members wide latitude in asking questions on the orders of the day. As hon. members know, there are two ways of asking questions. One, the normal procedure, is by putting the question on the order paper, the other is by asking a question before the orders of the day are proceeded with. In the latter case only questions should be asked which refer to matters of considerable urgency. A question which can be put on the order paper, to which an immediate reply is not required, should not be asked on the orders of the day.
The other matter to which I would refer is in connection with standing order No. 41, having to do with decorum in debate. I refer to Beauchesne, second edition, citation 293, which reads in part as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage, both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(o) read from a written, previously prepared speech.
During the debate on the throne speech I am sure that a considerable number of members read their speeches. Probably I should have interrupted them at the time, but I did not realize the speeches were being read until quite a number had been read. I did not think it was fair to the house, therefore, that I should interrupt when the debate was half way through. The rule is quite clear, and the practice in our house is quite clear. Speeches, except important declarations made by members of the government, by the leader of the opposition or the leaders of the other parties, or by some members speaking on their behalf, should not be read. If the

members of the house wish me to enforce that rule, I shall endeavour to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to empower the governor in council to do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada subject to the restrictions enumerated in the said measure.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne forecast the introduction of legislation vesting in the governor in council additional powers to ensure adequate defence preparations to meet the present emergency and to prevent economic dislocation resulting from defence preparations.
The question may be asked, what is the nature of the emergency we are facing? In the opinion of the government, it is as defined in the following language in the speech from the throne:
The increased menace in the Far East reinforces the mounting evidence that communist imperialism is determined to dominate the world by force or the fear of force, and that the only hope of maintaining peace with freedom lies in the rapid increase of the combined strength of the free nations.
I should judge that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would agree with the government's assessment of the gravity of the present emergency, because I feel that no other conclusion can be drawn from the words the hon. gentleman used in the debate on the address. Here is a part to which I might refer, as found at page 17 of Hansard:
We meet today at one of the most solemn hours in Canadian history. The immense gravity of the situation is not measured only by those military events which have impressed upon us the urgent need for building the ramparts of freedom with the utmost speed.
On page 19 he said:
The chilling truth is that never since our civilization emerged from the dark ages has that civilization-and even freedom itself-been so gravely threatened with extinction as it is at this very hour.
I believe that both the speech from the throne and the hon. member's speech on the address reflected the prevailing view of most people in Canada about the gravity of this situation. Only this morning the government received a delegation of representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada,
Emergency Powers Act the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour, and the dominion joint legislative committee of the railway transportation brotherhoods, who asserted to us that they represented practically all of organized labour in Canada, and that their membership was something over one million persons. With their dependents they constitute, so they asserted-and I am quite prepared to believe it-more than one-third of the population of Canada. They expressed their view of the situation in forceful and, I think, justifiable terms. Paragraph 1 of their brief reads as follows:
The free world now faces the most ruthless and powerful aggressor in history. The best it can hope for is long years of heavy defence expenditures, a large proportion of its manpower and resources diverted from productive work to a great effort for sheer survival. In this effort Canada must play a major part. We have no choice. The enemy is no longer at a safe distance. He is on our northern doorstep. Our share of the free world's industrial potential is large and important, far larger and more important than at the outbreak of war in 1939. If we fail or falter, our allies may be critically weakened, and disaster may overwhelm us all.
That is the view of a large proportion of the Canadian people at this time. Since that is so, it might afford justification for bringing into effect the War Measures Act, on the ground that we are in a state of apprehended war. I believe the dictionary definition of "apprehended"-perceived or feared-would be met in this instance. There is no doubt that the possibility of war is perceived. There is no doubt that it is gravely feared. If that is so, why not use the War Measures Act?
One reason why we have not proclaimed the War Measures Act is that the government fears such a course might add to the feeling, already too prevalent here and in other countries, that war is inevitable. Since its passage in 1914 the War Measures Act has been used on two very critical occasions, but they were both occasions of actually existing war. It has seemed to us we should do everything possible to avoid any suggestion that we believe war is no longer likely to be prevented. I believe we must increase our efforts to prevent a world war. I repeat what I said the other day about my confidence in the willingness of the free people of the twelve nations, grouped together in the North Atlantic treaty, to build up their strength to a point where aggression will not appear to be likely, to succeed. Moreover, the enactment of an emergency powers bill will not prevent the proclamation of the War Measures Act if the situation should become more critical than it is now. Of course it would not prevent the proclamation of the War Measures Act if we got into a state of actual conflict.
498	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act There are additional considerations which weighed on the government. The conditions being different from those which have at previous times led to the proclamation of the War Measures Act, the government feels it is preferable that there should be a departure from the normal constitutional distribution of powers, and that a decision as to the emergency should not be made merely on the judgment of the governor in council as to the present situation, but should rest with the people's representatives in this parliament. In view of the possibility that the state of emergency may be of an indeterminate length, the government considers that all the powers transferred by the War Measures Act to the governor in council need not be available immediately. These powers are far-reaching, and they include the capacity to affect not only the ordinary property and civil rights of Canadian citizens, but their personal rights as well. Hon. members know that under the terms of the War Measures Act a proclamation would give the governor in council power to do such things as he might by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada. The courts have had to deal with that language, and have decided that these general terms have their full meaning; that although there is, as an example, an enumeration of things that the governor in council may do, that enumeration is not restrictive; and that the only measure of what he may do is what he thinks is desirable, by reason of the existing emergency, for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
As this resolution indicates, it will provide for restrictions on this general power. While providing adequate powers to deal with the type of situation that may be expected to arise, the government has endeavoured to avoid taking powers of the grave character which no democratic government wishes to have, as a government, unless those powers are really necessary for the safety of the state.
I	have indicated that the emergency powers sought by this legislation will mean, as does the War Measures Act whenever it is in force, a potential departure from the normal distribution of powers under our federal constitution to the extent that that departure may be deemed necessary for the safety of the state.
There can be no doubt at this time as to the constitutionality of such an action. The courts have even decided that it is the governor in council, when he proclaims the War Measures Act, who is the judge of the emergency; and, when we had the transitional powers provided by legislation after


the war, that it was parliament that was the judge as to whether there was an emergency that justified that temporary transfer of jurisdiction from provincial legislatures to the central authority. I reiterate that the constitutionality of the War Measures Act has been repeatedly upheld. The more limited grants of power have also been upheld, from time to time, under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act of 1945 and the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act of 1947.
The leader of the opposition in his remarks on the defence bill during the last session, made reference to the constitutional consequences of such an emergency, and suggested that there should be a declaration of emergency before even the quite limited powers that we sought under the Essential Materials (Defence) Act were given to the government by legislation of this parliament. Under that act it was felt that the jurisdiction could be justified, without recourse to the emergency doctrine, as being something necessarily incidental to the exercise of jurisdiction for the proper defence of Canada. Hon. members know that section 91 of the British North America Act provides that parliament shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the matters therein set out and enumerated, and that even if, in the exercise of their jurisdiction in that respect, their legislation clashes with something done by the provinces under the provisions of section 92, the federal legislation prevails. The courts have held that anything that is necessarily incidental to the exercise of the powers enumerated in section 91 may also be done and will prevail over provincial legislation.
It was our feeling at that time that it was necessary, for the proper organization of the defence of Canada, to acquire supplies from the production of commodities in this country, and that it was also incidental to the exercise of that power that shortages might be brought about and that allocations or other measures might be required to counteract the effect upon the economy of the creation by the defence requirements of those shortages. But the situation has not improved since that time; and many of us feel, as do these representatives of organized labour in Canada, that the best we can hope for is long years of heavy defence expenditures and the diversion of a large proportion of our manpower and resources from productive work to a great effort for sheer survival. That effort is having consequences on the economy of the country.
The purpose of the delegation which waited upon the government this morning was to

impress upon us the desirability, in the view of those who wrote or subscribed to the brief, of immediate controls being exercised. The initial statement was that all these members of organized labour and their dependents were united in the conviction that rent control must be maintained and that price control must be imposed. I think they went away satisfied that it was rather the wise course to allow the provinces to exercise the power of rent control and to hope that they would, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, maintain a system of rent control that would be sufficient.
As to price controls, they were insistent in their view that over-all price controls would be beneficial. They were reminded of the share they had had in bringing before the royal commission on prices in 1948 their experience and views, and they were reminded of the valuable study that was made in 1948 of the factors which tend to create what their brief called inflation. There is, of course, to a certain degree inflation; but it is not the kind of inflation that developed in other countries where currencies were reduced to one-tenth, and in some cases to one-thousandth, of their previous values. There has been a price spread which has made it impossible to secure for the dollar the same quantity of commodities or the same kind of commodities that it was possible to secure for that dollar before the last great war.
As to the manner in which governments should exercise powers to counteract or prevent increases in prices, there certainly is room for divergence of views, and there is divergence, of course; and, as everyone recognizes, there are many factors at the present time different from those which existed in 1941. But there is no doubt that inflation- if we choose to call it that-with further substantial increases in price levels, would be a serious danger to the economy of the country.
There are those who claim that the promotion of price increases by inflation in the free countries is one of the potent arms of our potential enemies in this present cold war. That is something to which all of us have to give very serious attention. In order to be in a position to adopt such measures as the situation may from time to time require, it has been felt that it would be preferable not to proclaim the War Measures Act, which would cover the whole field, but to ask parliament to confer upon the government powers additional to those enjoyed normally under the constitution, enabling the government to adopt from time to time such measures as we can confidently recommend to the people of Canada as something that will be beneficial to the preservation of our economy.
Emergency Powers Act
That has to be the criterion upon which this or any government acts. The fate of this government is not of great importance, but the fate of government in democratic countries is vital to the preservation of our system. Governments must be very careful about recommending measures to the public of which they are the governors unless they firmly believe that those measures are required in the national interest; otherwise they are not apt to have the support of the public in the administration of those measures, and they are apt to undermine the attachment of free citizens to the form of government which thus loses their confidence.
We are therefore asking parliament-or we will after this resolution passes-to declare by legislation that the present situation is such that the ordinary distribution of legislative powers between parliament and the legislatures can to a degree be modified, and that there can be things which require to be done by the central authority uniformly throughout the whole country which would normally be within the jurisdiction of the local legislatures. We are asking parliament to authorize by this legislation the doing of some of the things which were done during the last war under the War Measures Act.
It is my hope that not many of the powers sought by this legislation will have to be exercised. At the present time there is no power in the federal government to control prices, other than those which may be affected by the requirements of defence supplies, which threaten the remainder available to the public and which might force up those prices.
The very existence of the right to intervene and establish regulations sometimes is in itself sufficient as a warning to prevent abuses; and the existence of these stand-by powers may make it unnecessary to deal with abuses that might arise if they were not in existence. It is not possible for us at the present time to say which and when and how these powers to control the economy of the country will have to be exercised. But the legislation which will follow on this resolution, if it passes, will provide that whatever exercise is made will have to be immediately communicated to parliament in accordance with the Regulations Act and can be rescinded by resolution of parliament in the manner in which, in the United Kingdom during the last war, action was taken with respect to orders in council made under similar powers.
There is no desire to by-pass parliament; there is no desire to attempt to maintain anything that parliament would not think was in the interest of the country. We recognize

Emergency Powers Act that parliament is a cross-section of the Canadian people; that anything that is attempted must have the approval, and the conscientious approval, of a large majority of the Canadian people; otherwise it will not work. Nothing that parliament found objectionable would be apt to work or to provide the benefits which those who promulgated it hoped would be derived from it.
If and when the resolution is adopted, the bill setting out the powers will be distributed. There will of course be ample opportunity- there is opportunity now-in view of the specific terms of the bill, to discuss it, to consider its sufficiency, whether or not it goes beyond what the situation requires at this time, whether or not the restrictions it contains are sufficient. The powers of parliament to review and deal with anything done under the bill are, in the opinion of hon. members, a sufficient guarantee that nothing will be foisted upon the Canadian people that is not acceptable to its elected representatives in this house.
I therefore submit the resolution, and I hope that hon. members will agree that something is required. The resolution merely makes way for the presentation of the specific terms of the bill, which I am sure will then be subject to careful and attentive scrutiny and possibly criticism by hon. members.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there will be general agreement throughout the house with what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) about the responsibility of parliament and the desirability of submitting to the elected representatives of the people any measure that is to have far-reaching effect upon the public life and economy of Canada.
The Prime Minister has referred to the emergency which has led to the motion now before us and which is the justification he presents for the introduction of the bill which will be before us with the adoption of this motion. He has indicated that the emergency is the increased menace in the Far East which demonstrates the full extent of the threat of communist imperialism. He has quoted from some words I used in the debate on the speech from the throne. I agree that those words were intended to convey my own belief that there is an emergency of the nature which he described.
I would point out, however, that this emergency is not new. I would point out that when another bill was introduced in this house last September we sought to emphasize that there was an emergency of this very

nature. True, the seriousness of the emergency is being recognized more generally, but the emergency that exists today was the emergency which existed in just as definite reality last September. I should like to recall some words that I used at the time we were discussing another measure before the house which had as its purpose the enactment of extensive government powers to deal with situations which might arise out of the events then calling for the attention of members of this house. I should like to quote from page 521 of Hansard of September 9, 1950, where I am reported as follows:
That is the issue; and we must gauge everything we do to the importance and to the scale of that issue. The issue is not the fight in Korea, but is one which stands before us, throughout the whole world. We have urged, and we urge again, that the government face that issue with a recognition of an emergency on a scale which has not been interpreted by the government. Having said that, let me add that no matter how much we recognize the emergency, and no matter how much we want it clearly defined, that should never be an excuse for supporting bills which disregard the basic principles of parliament, bills which disregard the responsibility of members, bills which in any way depart from the constitutional authority and responsibility of parliament.
Having said that on that occasion and at a time when we were seeking to point out the dangers of the indefinite and almost unlimited powers which were being sought at that time, I wish to indicate my own support for the proposition now placed before us that such emergency measures as are to be adopted shall be brought clearly before parliament and shall be the results of actual decisions of members of this house.
I am sure that this measure will be adopted without any opposition because it will be possible to discuss the bill itself only when we have it before us. However, there are certain points that have been raised by the Prime Minister which suggest the desirability of presenting certain views to this house as we proceed to deal with this legislation. The Prime Minister has said that in his opinion the emergency is of a nature which would justify the government from a constitutional point of view in invoking the provisions of the War Measures Act. He has said that he does not regard it as desirable that the War Measures Act should be invoked because it might convey the impression that war is inevitable.
Since the Prime Minister has referred to this may I point out that never at any time last September, before then or since then, have I suggested that we proceed under the wide powers of that act. When I referred last September to the existence of an emergency I was expressing my own opinion that if legislation is to be effective which bases

its validity upon the existence of an emergency so that it may give to the government of Canada powers ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the provinces, it is desirable to declare that there is in fact an emergency. I find that the suggestion has been made that on that occasion 1 was urging that the War Measures Act be invoked. I was not, and I am not now.
I very much prefer that there should be presented to this house legislation which will make it clear what powers are being assumed by the government. I shall go further and say that it is of the utmost importance that such powers as the government seeks and as this parliament is asked to approve should be defined with the utmost clarity so that the public is not left in doubt as to what those powers are. Also, the area of our economy within which legislation of this kind is to operate should be stated clearly so that those who are likely to be affected by legislation of this nature are not going to be in doubt as to whether they will be affected or not, and by that very fact possibly contribute substantially to the inflation which has disturbed this country so much today.
I most heartily endorse the suggestion by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that whatever we say and do here should seek to convey to the people of Canada the thought that a general war is not inevitable. I think that is of immense importance. The spirit in which our people accept whatever deprivations may be necessary as a result of the heavily increased burden of defence will be largely measured by the degree of hope they have in their minds that what is being done now may preserve that peace which every sensible person in the world desires so much today.
I think it is important that here in Canada and in the other free nations continuing emphasis should be placed upon the hope of peace because our people will then accept the burdens and responsibilities which are going to be imposed on them with the hope that by that effort peace may be preserved. Otherwise the things that we do will be carried on in a spirit of fatalism, and, in those homes where there has already so recently been tragedy, perhaps almost in an atmosphere of despair. It is a part of the struggle in which we are engaged to convince our people that there is still great hope of peace as long as the full energy of the free nations is put into this effort at the earliest possible moment and in the most effective way.
Certainly I agree, as I have already indicated, that there should be very clear and defir ;te indications of the extent of the
Emergency Powers Act authority that the government will have, and also of the extent of the authority that the government will assume. I must take issue with the Prime Minister with respect to one point in his remarks. He indicated that powers would be sought which might constitute a warning, that they were to be standby powers. I think it is very much better that we know as far as possible exactly what powers are going to be invoked because we have already seen many of the results of the very dangers we suggested last September at the time that the Essential Materials (Defence) Act was before the house.
At that time different speakers, not confined alone to the party to which I belong, indicated that the very generality of the terms employed would in itself create an atmosphere of uncertainty that was likely to invite inflationary action without effective restraint being imposed upon the results of that uncertainty. It seemed to me that we were in little doubt as to the extent of the powers that were being sought last September because at that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated his own belief as to what would be done by the bill then being introduced. When it was brought in last September the Minister of Trade and Commerce said on September 8, 1950, as reported at page 446 of Hansard:
There is, finally, the need to avoid runaway inflation, with its distortions of the wage and price structure and the unrest it brings in its wake. Common sense and self-discipline on the part of all Canadians can go far to avoid excesses which are completely unnecessary. As I explained earlier, we have never been more prosperous. We have never had a larger supply of goods and services and a greater capacity to produce more of these goods and services. Those who are hoarding, those who are raising prices in anticipation of a controlled economy, are doing a disservice to themselves and to the communities in which they live. In fact, by doing so they are directly contributing to a situation which may make it necessary to introduce controls that could otherwise be avoided.
I suggest that the very thing the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to last September in the words I have quoted took place. He was referring to the fact that it had taken place in his remarks just over a week ago when he said that those who would be most affected by controls had made appropriate adjustments, and he added words which, as I indicated before, did not appear in Hansard-"they are all set." These things did occur, and yet in spite of the fact that an assurance had been given that the bill then before the house, if it became law, would be invoked to deal with that situation nothing has been done thereunder. Three orders have been made, and they all deal with certain aspects of the control of steel. On February

Emergency Powers Act 8 last, as reported at page 181 ol Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said: '
Anticipating that defence preparations would in due course require control over certain critical materials, parliament at the last session passed the Essential Materials (Defence) Act.
Farther down the page he went on to say:
I think it well to add a warning, however, that further orders may soon have to be issued to assure supplies of structural steel for essential construction projects.
I give this warning so that those who contemplate construction projects which do not relate closely to our defence effort should not commit themselves to building operations unless they have the steel and other building materials, or know where they can be obtained. It would be unfortunate for those concerned, and a waste of valuable labour and materials, for projects to be started and then held up indefinitely for lack of some vital material.
In that statement I come back to this word "warning". I support the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that parliament should have placed before it the details of any powers that are to be conferred upon the government; but I also think that to the utmost degree possible parliament, which is being asked to confer those powers, should know what powers are going to be exercised and what powers are not. I think the time has come to direct the affairs of this country by law, not by warnings. I think the uncertainties created by that method have been in themselves a substantial factor contributing to the inflation that has taken place in this country. That is what I was referring to in my remarks a few days ago. There is the reason I think I should at this time, when this motion is before us, emphasize my own conviction that we should seek in every way possible to retain the rule of law while we are in the fairly early stages of what may be a prolonged struggle, a struggle we all hope will continue to be peaceful, though engaging such a considerable part of our efforts.
For that reason I would refer to the tendency of this government to rely upon warnings. On February 16 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) placed before this house an extraordinary proposition which is directly related to the approach to laws of this kind. At that time he indicated there was to be an appeal to the privy council from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case concerning the handling of certain grain in Manitoba, and I quote from pages 420 and 421 of Hansard for that date:
Should this appeal not be successful, the government of Canada, being desirous of applying to the decontrol measures in oats and barley the same principles of preventing fortuitous profits as were applied to other commodities, gives notice that it will, in order to carry out the principle of preventing such fortuitous profits, introduce legislation in

parliament confirming the settlements with all of the commercial traders in oats and barley, other than Mr. Nolan, and will, therefore, not recognize claims made on behalf of such commercial traders upon the wheat board or upon the government in derogation of the settlements already made.
May I anticipate any suggestion that I am raising any of the issues involved in this case. I am not. I am raising the legal principle and the parliamentary principle which has been put forward in this statement by the minister. What the Minister of Justice says in the statement I have just quoted is simply this: we are going to carry an appeal to the privy council from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nolan case. If the privy council upsets the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, then all will be well. If it does not, then we will let Mr. Nolan collect his judgment, but we are not going to let anybody else collect, no matter what their legal rights may be.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the sooner we deal with these parliamentary and legal principles without suggesting that we are talking about grain traders or farmers or anybody else, strictly on the basis of the parliamentary principle and the law involved, the more certain we are to retain those basic principles of democracy itself which never assume greater importance than at a time like this. I repeat that I am not concerned with the merits of the case. I am concerned with the extension of this principle of warning. In a statement with nearly all of which most of us would agree substantially, the Prime Minister nevertheless indicated that many of these powers would be used simply as a warning. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) wanted powers last September as a warning, and now the Minister of Justice is issuing another warning.
I want to point out that this would not be just a matter of denying the legal rights of those who might avail themselves of a judgment of this kind. It is a matter of public record that many others delivered their oats and barley under formal protest, for the purpose of retaining their legal position which might be determined by any other proceedings that would be instituted. So the effect of this would be of far-reaching consequence once it was established as a principle of this parliament or as a principle of law which we might follow.
To me there is one very ironic aspect to the matter. Many hon. members will remember that there was great haste in introducing in September, 1949, a bill which would terminate appeals to the privy council.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the leader of the opposition is pretty far from the subject of the resolution.


George Alexander Drew: I am proposing to suggest why the minister should reconsider the announcement he has made in this house, for two very important reasons:	first, because of the
impropriety of the principle enunciated; and second, because of the argument that was put forward at the time the bill was passed designed to terminate appeals to the privy council. At that time it was suggested that it might be desirable to withhold action in regard to a measure which obviously would be more effective when there was agreement with the provinces which would make it possible to deal with the whole question of appeals to the privy council completely and at one time. I for one made it clear then that I supported the intent, although I did suggest it should not be done in that way. I recall that at that time some question was raised as to our full recognition of the stature of the Supreme Court of Canada, and that any suggestion that we should go beyond the Supreme Court of Canada was almost an affront to Canadian lawyers. I find on page 197 of Hansard for September 23, 1949, the Prime Minister said:
... I have as firm confidence in a judicial body set up and operated in Canada and composed of my fellow Canadian citizens as I would have in a similar body set up and operating in any other country in the world.
On page 199 the Prime Minister stated:
We lawyers feel a special concern about the courts. It is my belief that we shall find we have added something of substantial value to the profession of law in leaving to Canadian lawyers, elevated in due course to the high office of His Majesty's judges of his Supreme Court of Canada, the responsibility for final decision on Canadian cases.
Although there is agreement between the dominion government and the provincial governments, endorsed by this parliament and by the provincial legislatures, those appeals to the privy council affecting questions of jurisdiction between the governments, which is the type of case that most often goes to the privy council, cannot be terminated. What better time to demonstrate this faith in the strength of the Supreme Court of Canada than at a time when the dominion government itself carried the case to the supreme court, and how better demonstrate their belief in the excellent judgment of that court than by accepting that judgment and acting accordingly? For those two reasons I suggest that, in consistency, the principle is unsound and should be withdrawn, because it is another of those warnings which has rather serious implications. I would suggest also if the government is going to ask us to accept their belief in this principle, that they take this occasion to demonstrate that conviction by their own actions.
Emergency Powers Act
Again, let me come to the question of controls as brought forward by this measure. Because of certain things which have been said in the press and elsewhere within the past few days, and because of certain things I have heard stated over the radio, I think it may be desirable to briefly review the position we took in regard to controls. This is the appropriate point to indicate our approach to this subject. I find there is a general suggestion amongst those who take a firm stand against controls of any kind, that by supporting the subamendment to the amendment that I moved we were climbing into the same bed with the C.C.F. party in regard to the idea of state planning, which certainly has been that party's view no matter how much it may be put forward at this particular time. In anything I say I have no thought of making remarks which suggest anything less than the highest purpose on the part of those of the C.C.F. party who presented their own views. But I want to point out that at that time I clearly stated we were voting upon our own amendment which had been subamended by a definition which, where we said that steps had not been taken to deal with inflation and the cost of living, added certain words which indicated that any steps to be taken include controls and subsidies.
I simply wish to recall, for the purpose of clarity in discussing this subject at this time, exactly what I did say. I recognize that it is not possible for the press to report more than a limited part of any speech, but I think that it might sometimes be desirable if those who make later comments concerning matters of this kind would take advantage of the opportunity afforded by Hansard to see exactly what views were expressed. I should like to recall that at page 291 of Hansard for February 12 I said this:
On examining some of the statements that have been made in support of that subamendment, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that those who introduced it have more in mind than simply an explanation of the amendment itself and that there is a return to the doctrinaire belief in over-all controls as part of our general economy and not something simply to meet an emergency, and a very real one, such as that with which we are confronted today. This point of view is one which I certainly do not accept. I most certainly believe that part of the struggle in which we are engaged today is to keep within our economy the greatest measure of freedom which can possibly be preserved throughout these difficult years.
At a later stage, I said:
I believe in a free economy; and I believe that one of the great issues before us in the years ahead will be whether we can preserve that free economy in the face of the threat with which this and every other free nation is now confronted.
I then went on to say that, in my opinion, inflation had reached in this country a point

Emergency Powers Act where that very free economy was threatened, unless emergency measures were taken which would check the rising cost of living and the inflationary spiral. I must say that there are those who, in complete sincerity, suggest that there is some mystical power in complete freedom from any control. I find that there are many who insist that the greatest protection the public can have is that free play of prices within a free economy which will make it possible for prices to go down in competition, as well as for prices to go up. On the occasion to which I have already referred, I stated that I believed it was folly to talk of the free play of prices within a free economy once government spending and government direction was segregating a substantial part of the raw materials and supplies from ordinary free competition. I said that, in my opinion, it was essential that some steps be taken to protect the public against the effect of the pressures which must inevitably be exercised upon the remaining supplies within any of those fields.
May I point out that those who have been put forward as strong exponents of the system of free enterprise have expressed similar views. The only question that has been raised is when this should be done. Mr. Donald Gordon-who was the man mainly responsible for price controls during the last war-speaking in Montreal on February 6 last discussed this subject. I should like to quote short extracts from that speech in order to indicate his own views. One of them is as follows:
Runaway inflation is so destructive that any method of stopping it, no matter how difficult and clumsy it may be, is surely the lesser evil.
Later in his speech he said:
In particular, it is plain that there are very powerful inflationary forces at work in this country and whatever the future holds for us we must be careful to chart our course so as to avoid the dangers associated with runaway prices.
Shortly after that he said:
If our unit of currency steadily loses its purchasing power, the burden will fall on the weaker and unorganized elements in our society, and on those who have been prudent and thrifty.
A little later in his speech he uses these significant words, "it may be later than we think." I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that it is much later than the government seems to think at this time. I am referring to those statements now in the hope that, in the introduction of this bill and the interpretation of the course which will be followed, which I think should be placed before us, we would have the government's course charted in relation to the real threat with which we are now confronted.
I also want to quote from another speech made by another economist because we are told so often that the economists believe that

price controls would be detrimental to our whole economy. This speech was made by another brilliant economist who was associated with the wartime prices and trade board during the war; I refer to Mr. Walter L. Gordon of Toronto. In a speech delivered there on February 12 he made a number of statements which I should like to quote at some length. Referring to the speech from the throne presented to this house he said:
In the speech from the throne the government made it clear that parliament will be asked for whatever emergency powers may be required to introduce controls over prices and wages if and when this becomes necessary and to continue controls over rentals. It would seem almost certain that these powers will be granted. Under these circumstances, I presume it will be desirable to continue the present controls over rentals which would otherwise expire on March 31.
Later in his speech he said:
But this does not mean that in times of stress and turmoil, such as we had during the last war and may have again, some form of price and wage control may not be useful as a stabilizing influence. Even if such measures do no more than slow up the rate of increase, they may be well worth while. And they might very well even cut sharp rises in the prices of particular goods, services or commodities which otherwise might occur.
In any event, no widespread system of price and wage controls should be ordered in Canada until at least a skeleton organization has been built up to administer them and until the basic policies and principles to be followed have been agreed upon by those in authority. Otherwise the controls will not work and their administrators will be discredited in the eyes of the public.
I seek to emphasize that statement, Mr. Speaker, because at the time we are going to consider this bill I would suggest that the government consider the wisdom of setting up at least a skeleton mechanism with which to deal with those measures of control that they propose to employ under the bill that we shall be called upon to consider.
At another point in his speech Mr. Gordon said:
But the fact that there now are controls over prices and wages in the United States, even though they may not as yet be working effectively, will mean increasing demands for similar measures in Canada. I suggest that, regardless of how some people may feel about it, we might as well prepare for what appears to be inevitable.
Without intending to give offence, Mr. Speaker, I say that that is no argument put forward by any member of the C.C.F. party nor is it anything that we have put forward, even though the suggestion has been made that we have climbed into bed with them. It is put forward by a man who is recognized as a brilliant economist, whose main work is associated day by day with those who believe implicitly in what we describe as the free enterprise system and who, I might add, has assisted the government a great deal not only during the last war but since. In this case

they chose their assistant well. Later in his speech Mr. Gordon had this to say:
If price controls become necessary, or if there is a universal public clamour for them, which quite properly amounts to about the same thing in a democracy, I would like to see most of the emphasis placed upon the bare essentials of living-food, basic items of clothing and shelter-even if this means subsidies.
Then later he said:
If price controls are introduced, I would like to see them applied first of all at the producers' and manufacturers' levels. It will be argued that this would be bad psychologically because wholesale and retail prices would continue to rise for some time after price control was introduced. And the public, who are only interested in retail prices, would complain that the administrators were not on their jobs.
Then again a little later he said:
I do not mean by this that under these conditions there should be no control whatever over retail prices. Obviously, in times of scarcity or of scarce buying, it would be foolish to control manufacturers' prices and to allow retailers to charge what they liked.
My last quotation from this speech is as follows:
If any system of price and wage control is decided upon, even a more or less flexible system, subsidies will be required sooner or later if the system is to be made to work. Subsidies are costly, as we learned during the war. But this might be a relatively cheap price to pay if it gave all groups in the community, and particularly white collar workers and pensioners, the feeling that they were being fairly dealt with and that those in authority had their interests at heart.
Not to put it forward because they are exponents of the free enterprise system but simply to suggest to some of those who seem to regard the avoidance of controls as the only hall-mark of recognition of the free enterprise system, may I point out that in the United States-which has been regarded by most people in most parts of the world as the great home of free enterprise-the two men who are mainly responsible for price and other controls are two men who, I would imagine, would be generally regarded as the very top-level examples of success under the free enterprise system. I would point out that the two men who have been charged with 'responsibility, and have accepted it, for exercising controls in the United States are Charles E. Wilson and Eric Johnston. Both of them have wide and extensive experience and both have been lifelong exponents of the free enterprise system. I mention that fact because I am convinced that the free enterprise system is the one that we want to preserve.
I am convinced that freedom applies to enterprise as well as to speech, association, worship and other human activities. But I am convinced right now that at a time that
Emergency Powers Act the government, rightly or wrongly, has removed from the ordinary operation of the free play of a free economy a substantial part of the supplies needed by our people, the only way we are going to preserve our free enterprise is to take those emergency measures which may be necessary to prevent the public suffering from the extreme pressures which will develop in the area that remains.
Let there be no doubt about the fact that there are shortages which are creating those pressures. In yesterday's Globe and Mail I find this quotation in a report by a very reliable writer for that newspaper, and I should like to quote his words:
In a limited field, however, notably textiles, the electronics field and the aircraft industry, where allocations are already the order of the day, the climbing prices of raw materials are making it increasingly difficult for the prospective contractor to quote the firm prices on which the government is insisting.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that unless some steps are taken to exercise a measure of effective control over those raw materials and supplies which are being forced up by government action, the government itself is going to have the utmost difficulty in making contracts, and the very course it is following is going to be the most inflationary thing of all when it tries to get firm contracts made.
If these people are unwilling to make firm contracts today, the only basis upon which they would make contracts at all would be on a basis which would include a price so far above the present price that they would be safeguarding themselves against changes that might occur. In other words, to use the expression of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), they will be sure that they are all set. After all, we must accept that as a reasonable precaution in a legitimate business transaction, as distinguished from any attempt to make exorbitant profits out of a situation of this kind.
I made the suggestion before that the government was primarily responsible for a substantial measure of this inflation. I know the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) does not agree with me, and that after all is a right shared by hon. members of the government side as well as hon. members on the opposition side. But I was basing that statement upon this fact:	Last September when the
very loosely worded bill was introduced, which is now known as the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, we sought to point out that any attempt to employ a loosely worded act of that kind as a warning, or as a threat, for the purpose of keeping down prices, and implying at the same time that controls were

Emergency Powers Act likely, would only force up prices and create the very evils which it was suggested we should avoid. That has happened. And a very large part of the inflation here has been the result of that uncertainty.
Everyone in this House of Commons knows what the Minister of Trade and Commerce meant when he suggested that adjustments had been made, and indicated the difficulties that there would be in dealing with this subject now because the element of surprise had ended. He meant that those who would be mainly affected had stepped their prices up beyond the point necessary so that, to use his words, they are all set for whatever may happen. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this was the inevitable consequence of the course followed by the government. This was the inevitable result of the repeated suggestion that there might be controls, even, that there would be controls, and an attempt to carry on the necessary restraints simply by a threat that if prices went too high something would be done.
It seems to me that is the one way to make sure that prices will go higher than they should go so that if there are any controls there is still going to be a substantial measure of profit left. For these reasons I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government has been largely responsible for inflation. It is no answer to say that there is inflation elsewhere. I admit that there are inflationary-pressures throughout the world today that cannot be stemmed completely in any one country, but I am not prepared to accept the proposition that in this sovereign nation of ours it is sufficient for us to say that we are going to rely on Uncle Sam for whatever legislation is necessary to deal with a situation of this kind.
I suggest, as was suggested by Mr. Walter Gordon, that the very existence of these controls in the United States makes these controls inevitable here. If they are inevitable here, and if the public becomes convinced they are inevitable by reading statements of economists of the standing of Mr. Walter Gordon, then the sooner these controls are put in the better it is going to be for all Canadians.
We are sometimes given to believe that because we buy certain raw materials from the United States we cannot expect to control prices too much here. You would almost think that practically the whole cost of the product here was made up of the cost of the raw materials; but very often the total value of the raw material from the United States in the finished article produced here may be only 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent at the outside. It is only upon that limited


percentage that the increases in the United States are operating, so that we have it within our power to do much to deal with our own economy as Canadians.
I can only repeat that in everything I have said I believe that we should advance carefully with recognition of the very point made by the Prime Minister, namely, that this may be a very long struggle, it may be one extending over years ahead, and that in the measures we adopt we should retain the greatest possible measure of freedom. Everything I have said has been said in a firm belief that free enterprise, just like other freedoms, is essential. But I also believe that, just as I do not agree with what may be described as a planned economy-it applies to controls in the making-the other doctrinaire point of view is equally dangerous. May I say that in the remarks that have been made in this debate no one has ever suggested an over-all rigid economy so far as I can recall.
There does seem to be some idea abroad that there is a peculiar sanctity about the right of certain businesses to carry on freely no matter what may happen. I am convinced that many of those people who assert that proposition sincerely believe that there should be freedom of that kind. Too often the name of free enterprise is repeated as though it contained some mysterious quality. There are unfortunately those who seek only freedom to gain advantage out of this desperate situation through which we are now passing. I believe in free enterprise, but I believe free enterprise will be preserved most effectively if the people of this country are convinced that no one has been able to take advantage of the desperate plight in which we find ourselves at this hour.
May I in this case borrow from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and say that I should like to think that the public will best respect free enterprise if it is satisfied that no one is all set for whatever may happen. There can only be complete freedom of purchase when there is complete freedom of production. The moment you restrict a part of the economy you create pressures in the other with which I submit we must be prepared to deal. What is the use of talking about the free play of prices when we know perfectly well just how much free play of prices and competitive play of prices there is in regard to many important articles today.
I have placed these views before the house because I believe that we have had inflation, some of which doubtless was part of a general world-wide pressure but a substantial part of which I believe is the direct result of the government's failure to act under the

legislation it adopted last September with the declared purpose of dealing with these things. We have had inflation by procrastination. I suggest that as we proceed to deal with this bill the government make it clear that it intends to exercise the powers it seeks and tell us, as the representatives of the people of Canada, exactly what measures it is going to employ and what measures it is not. Let us pass from those loose warnings to the rule of law, to the constituted administrative responsibility under the authority given by parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The big stick.


George Alexander Drew: I realize that the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not believe in any rule of law. Nevertheless I have been reassured, as I am satisfied a great many hon. members of this house have been, this afternoon by the statement by the Prime Minister which carries us far beyond last September to the point where he asserts in the clearest terms that the members of this house should know what powers are being conferred and what powers can be exercised by the government.
I urge the government when it brings in this bill to state that the time is now, that it is going to act, and that by positive action we will restore confidence in our economy, confidence in the Canadian dollar and make it possible once again for the business people of this country to make firm quotations so that the government may be able to make satisfactory contracts for the production of those things which are so necessary for the defence of freedom.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, apparently there is on this side of the house a warm welcome for the measure which is foreshadowed in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). However, I am sure that many were rather disturbed when he said that he hoped it might not have to be used. Looking back over the last few years we have seen year by year since controls and subsidies were removed an ever-rising cost in the living of the people of Canada. We are now faced with a situation in which the government itself is going to spend enormous sums of money which will put in short supply some materials needed for consumer goods. With the government in competition with the individual consumers prices undoubtedly will be forced still higher unless effective steps are taken to prevent it.
I think the government is wise in not relying on the War Measures Act. I agree with what the Prime Minister said in that regard, and also with what the leader of the
Emergency Powers Act opposition (Mr. Drew) said. It is much preferable that at this time the government should introduce a bill which we can discuss and which will give them the specific powers that they require to deal with the situation as it now exists or as they apprehend it may exist.
Like the Prime Minister I hope that we are not embarking upon a course which will lead to a third world war. I hope that sanity will prevail among all nations. I hope that the Soviet union and its satellites will realize that if they bring our civilization down about our ears, theirs will crumble with it. Since they are less able to produce the supplies that go into modern war, their defeat is inevitable. I hope that that will prevent the onset of a new world war.
The Prime Minister remarked that certain labour organizations representing some one million workers had presented a brief to the government this morning. I was not aware of that until I heard the Prime Minister refer to it, when I immediately sent out to secure a copy. From what the Prime Minister said I was not aware that the brief was based entirely on the question we are now discussing, that of controls. Having had it in my hands for just a little while I have been unable to make an analysis, but I do notice that it warmly supports the point of view that we put forward in the house a week ago when we were discussing controls, and also some expressions of opinion that the leader of the opposition made this afternoon regarding the present economic situation.
May I say to the leader of the opposition while I think of it that we are not discussing this matter at the moment from any theoretical point of view. It is true we believe that there must be a larger measure of planning in the interests of society than we have had in the past. I noted with a great deal of interest this afternoon that the leader of the opposition admitted that the kind of economy in which we are living, the so-called free enterprise system to which many persons give allegiance, sometimes results in a certain measure of licence to those powerful organizations that we refer to as being monopolistic in character.
I am not this afternoon, nor have I in the last several years, as the records of Hansard will show, basing the contention that we should continue beneficial controls and subsidies on any theoretical or doctrinaire basis. Experience in the past few years surely has brought home to us the need for the protection of society against undue profiteering and undue pushing up of prices such as we have seen during the past few years and which
508	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act again, as was suggested this afternoon, has been so apparent in the past few months since the government stated in the last session of parliament that powers were being taken so that perchance some control could be exercised.
It has been said on a number of occasions this afternoon that in anticipation thereof certain interests have taken care to see that they are all set for what may happen from now on. Inflation we have. There is no doubt of that at all. We only have to look at the record of rising prices over the last few years. It is not only affecting organized labour but also the white-collar man, or unorganized workers in industry, the pensioner and the person living on a fixed income from savings, but is also very adversely affecting the farming community.
Bureau of statistics figures show that on August 1, 1950, living costs of the average farm family had risen by 43-3 per cent over the 1946 figure as of April 1. I am using a percentage figure. If I used the index figure it would seem still larger. At the same time the cost of living index in urban centres had increased by 42-8 per cent over and above April 1, 1946. In other words, there was a slightly higher increase in the cost of things that enter into the living of farm families than there was in those things that enter into the living of urban families.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) pointed out the fallacy of relying on the United States to prevent further inflation in this country. I think this is a very interesting point. About three or four weeks ago I telephoned the bureau of statistics and asked if they could give me comparable wage rates for the same group of basic industries in Canada and in the United States. I shall quote from memory but my memory is good and I think I can quote accurately within a few cents. The average rate given to me for Canada was $45 and a few odd cents a week, and for the United States was $59. If that is true then why is it that the costs of commodities into which labour enters in this country are so much higher than the costs of the same classes of commodities in the United States? I think that is a question that should be answered.
Moreover, in the answering of that question one would find refutation of the very basis used by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on previous occasions, namely, relying too completely on the United States. I now have before me a later figure for Canada than the one I obtained a few weeks ago from the bureau of statistics. The average wage in Canada is $46.59. Again on the basis of the figures from the bureau of statistics, while
[Mr. Coldwell.l

we hear a good deal about increased wages in Canada, in terms of the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar the $46.59 last month was only equivalent to what $32.89 would buy in 1946. Therefore the real increase in these wages amounted, in so far as purchasing power is concerned, to some 33 cents a week.
Because I think it could not be said better than it was said by the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, in a radio address which he delivered in 1941, I should like to draw the attention of the house to what he had to say. His speech was published in the Labour Gazette (1941, pages 1362-3) and I shall read therefrom. He said:
Rising prices unless controlled will make it more costly and therefore more difficult to finance the war.
How strikingly that was confirmed by the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley when he was minister of justice. He stated to the house, as I quoted him the other day, that by an investment of $200 million the government, by means of controls and subsidies, had been able to save the people of this country, either through their government or individually, $2,500 million. In other words, for every dollar expended on controls during the war $12.50 was returned either to the government through reduced expenditures on armaments and supplies or to consumers individually in the things that they purchased. Mr. Mackenzie King pointed out that unless inflation was controlled it would be more costly and therefore more difficult to finance the war. It may be said that we are not at war now. No, we are not at war in the sense that we were in 1941, and I hope we shall not be, but at least we are making preparations equivalent in some respects, though not in amount, to what we would be doing if we actually were at war, and they are made necessary because of the uncertainty in which we live and the possibilities of war. Mr. King went on to say:
Rising prices, unchecked, will spread confusion and uncertainty in industry and trade. They will hinder production and the proper distribution of supplies. They will make the cost of living rise more rapidly than, wages and salaries. The value of savings will be materially lessened. The result would be hardship to nearly everyone, and hardship in very unequal measure.
I want to say that there is hardship today, hardship that is being felt in a very unequal measure as returns from certain industries to their shareholders will show, and as by contrast the high prices faced by old age pensioners, veterans and others will show. Mr. King continued:
Rising prices-a rising cost of living-do not have the same effect on all households. The smaller the family income and the larger the family, the more serious the hardship imposed. For those with small incomes rising prices of clothing, food and other

necessaries may mean serious hardship, while for those with larger incomes only luxuries and some comforts may have to be given up.
He went on:
Rising prices thus serve to aggravate the inequalities in society, and to throw the heaviest burdens on those least able to bear them. Wartime experience has shown-
I would like to emphasize this:
-that prices rise faster than wages or salaries, and bear more heavily still on those who live on small pensions or life savings. Nor is the position of the farmer any happier than that of the wage earner. . . . Because of the heavy demands of war on industry, the scarcity of manufactured goods is likely to be greater than the scarcity of farm products. The rise in prices will consequently be unequal, if prices are left to themselves. The things farmers have to buy tend to go up in price, more than the things they have to sell.
As a matter of fact we have seen some farm prices falling while the prices of farm machinery and equipment and farm living costs have been rising steeply.
The truth is that all but an insignificant minority of the population would be worse off as a result of rising prices, if prices were permitted to rise unchecked, and in general, the relatively poor would suffer more than the relatively well-to-do.
If ever words were apropos these are at this time and in this debate. They state precisely what we of this party have been saying for some time, and I think they tell the government what they should be doing now. As I say, no doubt the government will reply that when Mr. King made that statement in 1941 we had been at war for two years. As I have said already, while we are not engaged in war in the sense that we were at war then, we are engaged in a desperate struggle with an adversary who in many respects may prove to be more powerful than the nazi dictator with whom we were struggling in 1941. As I quoted Beverley Baxter the other day as having written, the Politburo in Moscow will watch this inflation, knowing that if the cost of living rises and the peoples of the democratic countries have their standards of living reduced, and inequality and unfairness develop, there will be the seed bed for communist propaganda, and no doubt in some instances for communist revolution. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that this afternoon, though not in so many words. Should war come I think the emergency we will face will be the most costly in the history of the world, and certainly we should not allow ourselves to be further burdened with high prices for the things we need in order to fight a war.
I suppose some people will raise the argument that if we have price control, then of course we must have wage control as well. I know I have been quoted in the press over and over again as having said I was opposed to wage control. I do not think anyone has
Emergency Powers Act heard me say that. What I have said is that I am opposed to the freezing of wages. I have said also that if the proper method is adopted of calling in the representatives of organized labour, as they appeared before the government this morning, and representatives of other interested groups in the community, I believe wage stabilization can be arrived at. Today, however, we have a large measure of wage control. Look at the railway agreement made last autumn. That will run for two years. There we have wage stabilization for two years, while if the government does not take action prices will rise sharply. Indeed, during the fourteen months or so in which that agreement was under negotiation there were steep increases, which were referred to in the report of Mr. Justice Kellock. Believing as he did that in a sense parliament had put a ceiling on the increase that could be granted, the maximum which parliament had suggested was agreed upon; yet it was admitted that price levels had changed and that the increase granted might not be enough to make up for the increased prices.
Those of us who were in the house at the time will remember that wages were frozen early in the last war. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) may have a word to say about this when he speaks, but it will be remembered that one group of steel workers in the city of Montreal had their wages frozen at an admittedly substandard level, and it took a considerable time to bring them up to something a little more reasonable. Farmers have their wheat prices stabilized and controlled in large measure by an international wheat agreement. Through their agreements workers have their wages controlled for six months, a year, or two years in advance. But the manufacturers, the wholesalers and retailers are under no control. They do not have to negotiate any prices. The farmer, through his farm organization, makes his representations to the government in regard to some of the commodities that have been or are controlled. The worker has to go through the process of a vote and conciliation before he can get an increase. But overnight, without reference to anyone, the manufacturer can get all set for whatever may happen in the way of price increases.
Consequently I say the legislation should not be brought down as a warning, and should not be brought down as stand-by legislation. It should be brought down to be used. Unfortunately, of course, we have let time go by and now an attempt must be made not only to put a- ceiling on prices but, as far as we are able, to roll back prices. That may mean, as Mr. Walter Gordon said, that we may have to use subsidies; and I agree with the leader of the opposition in describing Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Emergency Powers Act Gordon as one of the outstanding economists of this country. We used subsidies very effectively during the last war, but bit by bit we discontinued them. We discontinued the subsidies that were beneficial to the farmer and the consumer, but we actually gave more subsidies to some other interests in this country. In 1945 we gave a subsidy on butter-fat to keep down the cost of butter, and so on, to the extent of $24 million. In 1949 that subsidy was gone; prices were rising. As a matter of fact in this city today you have the spectacle of milkmen delivering skim milk at the doors of the consumers at a cost of fifteen cents a quart. There is no one to say they should be charging that amount for milk after the butterfat and cream have been taken out of it, leaving only the curds and the whey.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about the Ontario milk board?


Major James William Coldwell: The Ontario milk board I understand does not set the price of skim milk.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rather think it does.


Major James William Coldwell: It sets the price of fluid whole milk, 3-4 or whatever it is, but not for the skimmed milk.


Mr. Knowles:: It is probably set by the
waterworks department.


Major James William Coldwell: We gave a subsidy on the fluid milk produced of $13 million. We give none today. May I say that was one of the most beneficial subsidies this country ever gave. After parliament had asked the government in August 1946 to continue granting that subsidy, six weeks later by order in council they discontinued it. Then we saw the consumption of fluid milk fall because the price went up and has continued to go up ever since. The consumption of fluid milk, in spite of all the advertising and the educational work done in our schools by the various health departments, has gone down.
We gave a subsidy on hog production which amounted to $11 million. We gave $4 million last year. We had a subsidy on raw cotton and linters which amounted to $13 million to keep down the cost of clothes. I do not see how the father of a small family who is earning from $100 to $150 per month can pay the rents which are requested in this city, buy the food and necessary clothing, leaving out of consideration the larger families which sometimes are to be found in that low income group.
Of course, we had a feed grain freight subsidy which amounted to $17 million, and we have that to some extent, $14 million. The Maritime Freight Rates Act accounted for

$4 million then, and $11 million now. We had no gold subsidy during the war, but we gave a subsidy of $13 million for fluid milk. During 1949 we had no subsidy on fluid milk, but we had a subsidy on gold which amounted to $14 million that year. So, some of the subsidies that we had were wiped out, and the one we did not have is today larger than the subsidy that we gave to milk. It may be of course that the subsidy on gold, because of the manner in which we have been able to use it in the United States, is justified. The point I am making is that we cut out another subsidy which I think was justified to a far greater extent because it affected more people in this country and particularly the children. I refer to the subsidy on fluid milk.
As the prime minister of the day pointed out in 1941, price controls were essential to enable us to do the kind of job we had to do in producing the equipment for war, and in maintaining decent standards of living for peace. But while standards of living have been going down and the costs have been going up, profits have been, and are, at an all-time high. I have not been able to secure all the corporation figures for 1950, but a sampling of those figures indicates that corporate profits in this country for 1950 will be substantially higher than they were in 1949 when, after taxes were paid, they amounted to $1,241 million. We have seen a demonstration of the inequality about which Mr. King spoke several years ago. There is inequality in that the standards of living for the masses of the people are going down, and profits are going up. We have done nothing to prevent that tremendous accretion of money which has gone to some people in our country on account of the speculation that has occurred in our economy over the last several years. Indeed, to some degree, that speculation has been responsible for some of this inflation. As I said the other afternoon I would very much like to see the government siphon off the results of this speculation by means of a substantial capital gains tax.
This afternoon I was disappointed when I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) refer in the manner in which he did to rent controls. As I say, I have just received this brief and I have had no opportunity of talking to anyone who presented it to the government either before or after it was presented. But I must say that I am surprised at hearing that the delegation which met the government this morning seemed to be in agreement that rent controls might be undertaken by the provinces. It may be that under our constitution-I think it is so-property and rents come under provincial jurisdiction. To my

mind we should provide in the new legislation for a uniform system of rent control from one end of this country to the other. If we do not, what shall we find? We shall find comparisons made by the people in one province as to what has been done in another province. We shall have criticisms by one province of another province. In the matter of these controls, I believe it would be preferable to have them on a uniform basis. Again may I say that when rent control is put into effect, as I believe it should be under federal jurisdiction, it should not be done in the rough and ready way it was done during the war and during the subsequent partial removals. I think that opportunity should be given for revisions on the part both of the tenant and of the landlord, so that justice can be done to both parties to an agreement.
If, under the conditions that prevail, we embark on a measure of control I agree with the leader of the opposition that the more specifically it can be outlined in the legislation which is to be brought before us the better it will be for this house and the country. I have in my hand a copy of the brief to which I referred. I notice that the groups represented include the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, the dominion joint legislative committee of the railway transportation brotherhoods. As the Prime Minister pointed out, they represent a large group in Canada. They ask for these four things. They put it this way, and I had better read what they said at page 11 of their brief. Paragraph 25 reads as follows:
25. The labour movement therefore wants four things: (a) Adequate rent control.
They are not requesting that of the provinces but of the federal authority. The paragraph continues:
If rents are allowed to continue to go the way other prices have gone, the already heavy burden of the increased cost of living will become, for hundreds of thousands of families, almost unbearable. They will be able to provide themselves with shelter only at the cost of severe cuts in other parts of their living standards, including food.
(b)	Freezing of prices.
(c)	A public board to pass on all applications for price and rent increases.
(d)	Labour representation on that board. The absence of such representation on the wartime prices and trade board was a serious error, which should not be repeated.
Those are the four main points made. I should like to see an extension of some of them. For example, in (d), I should like to see labour, farm and consumer representation on those boards so that these groups could understand the viewpoints of one another. In that way we might get more
Emergency Powers Act understanding and more unity in the country. These measures are difficult perhaps to work out and to put into effect but I think that the government, under pressure from this parliament and indeed under the pressure of public opinion in this country, must put into effect measures of price control involving the payment of subsidies, in an attempt not only to stabilize but to roll back prices. If you stabilize prices and if you have groups which can discuss the wage levels of the various groups of workers in the country, I am certain that you can come to an agreement. My hon. friend who sits behind me and who has a copy of this brief-as I said, I have not had time to read it-points out that in paragraph 23 of their brief they refer to what I am saying just now. I will read it to the house and in doing so may I say that I shall read it for the first time; I have not read it before. It reads as follows:
The labour movement recognizes that wages could go up fast enough and far enough to break a price ceiling, though it sees no immediate danger of anything of the sort. It believes that the proper way to deal with this question is a government-labour-management conference to work out methods of wage stabilization.
That is what I have been saying for the last year or two, but always having been quoted by the press as being opposed to wage controls. The brief continues:
This offers a prospect of a wage policy which will do two things, both essential:	(a) preserve the
spirit, the principle, of collective bargaining, and (b) bring the experience of labour and management into the defence effort. If our government institutes a general policy of price and production controls, labour is ready to take part in a joint government-labour-management conference to consider wage stabilization.
There we find an explicit statement of the acceptance by labour of the very policy that we have been urging in this house and indeed across the country. We must of course have wage stabilization if we are going to have effective price controls. No one could believe otherwise. But on the other hand I am not in favour-nor are they, nor I believe is anyone with a semblance of justice in his make-up-of the freezing of wages suddenly so that some wages will be frozen at substandard levels, as they would be. I therefore believe that there is substantial unanimity in this country behind the demand we are making for the institution of price controls immediately and the payment of subsidies so *that the producers of primary and agricultural products would not be penalized and so that this great burden upon our people would be eased.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize what I firmly believe, and I have said it so often in this house that I hesitate to repeat it. I believe that the best propaganda for the Labour-Progressive party or the communist party is

Emergency Powers Act the propaganda that will be accepted where people are suffering under depressed conditions. Whether it is here, in Europe, Africa, or in Asia, poverty, misery and want provide the seed bed for communist propaganda. I want to see neither a resurgence-which is quite possible-of what we destroyed during the war, namely fascism and nazism, nor a growth of a totalitarian form of communism-I believe that both are opposite sides of the same coin-threatening the world as they do with recurrent disaster.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the members of the house were definitely reassured this afternoon when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave his statement when moving this resolution. I certainly felt reassured by his very sincerity. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister upon conveying to the house a clear-cut definition of what the government proposes to do. I also want to congratulate him on observing meticulously the true democratic process. I think it must be refreshing to everybody to know that our Prime Minister will not try to hide things under a heavy cloak of language but will come straightforwardly to the point and say: We are going to ask parliament to give us additional powers; and those powers will be voted by parliament and none other.
This afternoon I found myself in fairly complete agreement with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I found that we were standing in a different position from that in which we stood on Friday last. I find that I am ready to defend the Mr. Drew of today against the Mr. Drew of last Friday. He gave an excellent address as did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Because they said many of the things that I perhaps would have said, and certainly many with which I agree, I am not going to try to give a long speech this afternoon nor am I going to attempt to cover the ground they have covered. I think it is important, however- and I believe the Prime Minister would want it-to place definitely before the house the position we take with respect to the measure which is to be introduced as a result of this resolution. We agree, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in a time of danger and emergency. The emergency is real to us. Our words up to this time in the session have indicated that we feel that is the situation. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the present emergency is most certainly of indeterminate duration.
I do not believe any of us can see the end of it. It may last for much longer than any of us have any reason to suspect.
We agree too, Mr. Speaker, that it is wise not to invoke the War Measures Act now. We think that this is a far better way of


dealing with a situation that is not clearly a war situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was very wise in pointing out to the house this afternoon that until we are facing actual war conditions it is better not to bring in the War Measures Act, but to ask for a transfer of certain powers to the central government in order that they can meet the situation as it now exists. But he did promise that if at any time we do face actual war conditions he will bring in and proclaim the War Measures Act.
There is one thing I should like to say at this point, Mr. Speaker, by way of warning. The government must be careful not to impose any measure upon the country unless it is certainly in the best interests of the country as a whole. The Prime Minister gave us assurance that that would be true; but let us not ask now for any more powers than we intend to use, and when we do get those powers into the hands of the government let us immediately put them to use.
Like the two speakers who preceded me, I do not like to see a lot of stand-by powers that may be used as a salutary warning to the country. In my contribution to the speech from the throne debate I mentioned that a spirit of gouge is in the air today, and because the spirit of gouge is in the air there must be some protection for the ordinary citizens of this country. The only way that that protection can be afforded, in our judgment, is to have powers in the hands of the government sufficient that they can take action to see to it that the freedoms of the individuals of this country are preserved. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize this. We believe there is a definite limit to the freedom of any individual. That limit has been reached when an individual, or a group of individuals, attempts to encroach upon the same liberties of other people, and we feel that that limit has been exceeded in a good many instances by people who are in a position to control supplies and production in this country, particularly the middleman.
An. hon. Member: And prices.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, and prices. We feel that whenever the government asks for unusual powers to deal with a situation of this kind, it is wise for them to put those measures to immediate use.
On two or three different occasions during this session we have said we feel that what the government does about controls ought to be done overnight, and not be spread over a long period of time, a period of waiting and watching, because it just gives the other fellow the chance to push his prices up to

a point where he thinks he is safe, and it is very difficult to start rolling those prices back.
I want to assure the Prime Minister that we in this corner of the house, the Social Crediters, feel with him that war is not inevitable. We hope that by this time next year we can look back and say, well, we are glad we took the view that war was not inevitable. But at the same time I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: I am sure that one of the best ways of preventing the outbreak of a world conflict is to be ready to meet it if it is to come. There is no better way of getting ready to meet it than to have the government bolstered with the powers which it will require if the emergency should burst into open conflict throughout the world.
I agree that the time has come when we should be considering this whole matter of controls. We believe that the place of government in any country is to give protection to the individuals from encroachment upon their freedom, with all that the word "freedom" implies. Let me say, when we speak of freedom, it means more than freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear and freedom from want. It means freedom to carry on, as the leader of the opposition said, in a free economy; but it also means freedom to choose, and freedom to consume the goods and services that are produced in a country to be consumed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the United Church of Canada Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: ' the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Dominion Day Act and the Victoria Day Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Statutory Holidays
On section 1-Dominion day.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question with respect to this section, which would apply also to section 2. It is clear that the aim of the bill is to provide that these two summertime holidays shall be observed on Mondays in all cases. In the case of Dominion day the provision is that it shall be celebrated on the first Monday following the thirtieth day of June. If June 30 should fall on a Monday it would mean that the observance would not take place until July 7. I wonder if the hon. member has given consideration to providing that this holiday be celebrated on the Monday nearest to July 1?


John Lorne MacDougall: I am glad the hon. member has brought that up. The purpose of the bill is not intended to destroy the holiday in any way. It is quite clear that this is not a bill to change the holiday as such; it is simply meant to change the observance of the holiday. I think everyone recognizes that when a holiday falls in mid-week there is a considerable disturbance of industrial output. A man with his wife and family may not be sufficiently possessed of the world's goods to take holidays abroad. There may be relatives within driving distance that he could visit with his family over a long week end, whereas if the holiday falls in the middle of the week he is unable to do so.
With respect to celebrating these holidays on Mondays, I think we should appreciate that in the case of confederation it was first of all enacted on a Monday. As far as May 24 is concerned, which is the celebration of the birthday of our late Queen Victoria, it might be noted that Her Majesty was born on a Monday.
Coming now to the question asked by the hon. member. Regardless of when the holiday itself may fall, mid-week, the first of the week or the latter part of the week, this bill provides that it will be celebrated on the following Monday. It will not take away one iota from the spirit surrounding these holidays. An added advantage will be a continuity of long week end holidays.
One great advantage of this measure is that it will not cost anything. Nothing is added to the cost of government or to the cost borne by the individual taxpayer. Another important fact to bear in mind is that when these holidays are celebrated on dates clearly and specifically set out in a bill we are bringing about something that the ordinary man and woman and their families will appreciate.


Mr. Poulioi:: Will parliament sit on those Mondays?

Statutory Holidays


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not see anything wrong with the bill, and I see some things in it that are good. I should like to ask the sponsor whether these Monday holidays will be paid holidays. I suppose they will.


John Lorne MacDougall: Statutory holidays.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The first of July is a paid holiday. I think it is a good thing for the workers to have Monday holidays. Some people think that workers have too many holidays but those of us who have been through the mill know that is not true. With a Monday holiday a man can attend his place of worship on Sunday where he ought to be, and on Monday can take his family out in his flivver and have a happy time.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, on the face of it I suppose that most hon. members would feel there was nothing very wrong with this bill. I for one have no objection to prolonging any week end in order that we may have a longer holiday than would normally be the case. Nevertheless I should like to draw two or three things to the attention of the house in our consideration of this measure. First of all Dominion day and Victoria day are the two patriotic holidays that are observed generally right across the country. In many parts of Canada there are observances which have some local significance but I think I am correct in saying they are the only two national holidays observed by everyone right across Canada.
In introducing this measure I hope that the hon. member is not thinking of using it as a step toward moving Christmas day and New Year's day to Monday because they are the only other two holidays left that are of a national character, with the exception of Good Friday. Easter Monday is a traditional holiday. In municipalities where they are observed civic holiday and labour day fall on Mondays, and so on. In some businesses the king's birthday is observed, and the celebration likewise falls on a Monday. Easter Monday is observed mainly by banks and legal houses, but nevertheless there are a number of holidays falling on Monday which provide long week ends for workers.
If we have one shortcoming more than another in this nation I believe it is that we pay too little attention to tradition. I should like to see our educational institutions throughout the length and breadth of this land instilling- into our children more and more of the history and tradition of Canada, teaching them what, it means to live in our land, what it meant to their forefathers, all of whom, with the exception of the Indians who were here before any of us, came to this country from other lands.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
I should like our children to be taught about the sacrifices made by those of their forefathers who came to this country, who gave up lands and fortunes in pursuit of liberties of one kind or another, political liberty, religious liberty, privileges we enjoy today in Canada and which a great many of us are prone to forget. Among the privileges that we enjoy probably the greatest stem from that historic day which brought to us as a nation a constitution upon which has been built a great and growing tradition. In all sincerity I ask members of the house if they know of any other nation which would transfer the observance of its national birthday to a fixed day in the week. I ask hon. members whether they would like to transfer the observance of their own birthdays, if they do observe them, to some other day.


Mr. Stick:: Don't tell us how old you are.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is no secret in this house. Would they like to transfer their birthdays to another given day in the week? To me the observance of July 1 as a national holiday has a great value far and above that of merely having one day's holiday. I think we might very well ask ourselves what is the purpose of this holiday. Is it to have a day off work or is it to commemorate an historic event? If it is merely to have a day off work, put it on any day at all, and in the space of a generation the purpose of the holiday will have been forgotten. I say to you this evening that what we need is not to transfer our holidays to more convenient times so that we may have more leisure but a resurgence of national spirit that will instil into all our young people some sense of the value of the things which they possess. Dominion day and Victoria day are our only national holidays, and I beg you not to treat them lightly.
There is one other point with respect to May 24, Victoria day. In the schools of this country patriotic exercises associated with what is called Empire day are observed on May 23, the day before Victoria day. I feel very strongly that the value of these exercises would be lost completely if they were celebrated on the 23rd of May or the nearest appropriate day and then a number of days elapsed before the celebration of the 24th of May. Suppose the 24th falls on a Thursday or Friday and is to be celebrated on the following Monday. The school children observe their patriotic exercises in their schools on the 23rd of May, have what almost amounts to a half holiday, and then go back to their normal routine until the 24th of May is celebrated some time in the following week. Where is the value attached to such an

observance? I feel strongly that it is a mistake to pass this measure over lightly. True enough our people need holidays and need rest; we all do. But I am sure that the working people of Canada, if given a chance to consider seriously the effect upon those who will come after us of throwing into the discard these two national holidays, would strongly urge us to raise our voices against such a procedure. I ask members of the house to consider the matter very carefully before they support the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am in favour of the bill because I am in favour of long week ends. The hon. member for Hamilton West has spoken about the observance of national holidays by school children. I agree with her so far as Victoria day is concerned. There should be a panegyric of Queen Victoria on that day in all schools in order that the school children may know that there was a queen of England who had a very long reign during which there were very few wars, with the exception of the South African war, and that the world at large was at peace during her reign.
As the hon. member for Hamilton West probably knows, the school year ends about the middle of June. Since Dominion day is on July 1, the children will have been out of school for two weeks before that day is celebrated. I wonder if it is her intention to suggest that the boys and girls should be brought back and the schools reopened just for that day, or that the holidays of the children should be shortened by two weeks.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the hon. member had
been listening he would have realized that I said nothing whatever about observing July 1 in the schools. I am quite well aware of the point he had just mentioned, but when referring to the schools I mentioned only May 23.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to make it
absurd, and I do not want the hon. member to take it in the wrong way. Although she is a woman, she chose to run for parliament and here she must understand that while there are many men, they are friendly toward her and mean well when they ask questions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: I want the hon. member to
keep quiet. I have said nothing out of order and I want her to keep quiet while I am speaking.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon member is raising a point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are all alike.
Statutory Holidays


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As all hon. members of
this house should know very well, I have not asked nor do I ask for favours of any kind.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
female of the species is deadlier than the male. We are here to discuss the question of a long holiday or rather two long holidays, one during the school year and one after it. The hon. member may establish subtle distinctions after she is through, but she did not make that distinction in her speech.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You are wrong.


Jean-François Pouliot: If she did it was in a manner that could not be understood by any of her colleagues.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You should listen.


Jean-François Pouliot: I sat very quietly listening
to the hon. member to see if she got the point, but she discovered it only after I had pointed it out to her. She may find it unpleasant, but she chose to run for this house and she must listen to me.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder why the Tories are so touchy. They are touchier than their lady colleague, and I do not want them to frown like that; they may frighten us. I use the language of a gentleman, but I believe in freedom of speech and no hon. member will prevent me from saying what I have to say in this house in accordance with the rules and traditions of parliamentary life. Some people seem to have no humour at times. Well, it is no sin not to have a sense of humour, but they must understand that when they differ with someone there may be that little touch of something which may arouse their feelings, with no offence meant.
To sum up, sir, the hon. member sponsoring this bill should be congratulated. He must not be discouraged because the fairest of all of us disagreed with him on one point,, although I have reduced that now to one-half a point. At first the discussion had to do with two long week ends; now it appears that only one-half his suggestion should not be accepted. I may tell the hon. member for Hamilton West that in her city, as in my own and in all constituencies, Dominion day is celebrated by all families. The feeling of the Canadian people on that occasion is one of patriotism and pride in our country. Whether the schools are open or closed there is no Canadian who does not feel on that day that he must be prouder than ever of being a Canadian citizen.


Mr. Graydon:: There is one aspect of the clause which perhaps could be improved by an amendment. I was not in the chamber,

Statutory Holidays
through my own fault, while the hon. member made his explanation with respect to the exact wording of those sections in the original bill he proposes to amend; but when one realizes that in some years July 7 could be the date when we would observe this holiday as the bill now stands, it would seem that a change would be advisable. I should think his desires would be carried out very much better if the section were amended to provide that the holiday should be celebrated on the nearest Monday to July 1 or May 24, as the case may be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I suggested.


Gordon Graydon: You always get in ahead, but sometimes your suggestions are not very acceptable. This happens to be the exception to the rule. I have read the bill very carefully, and this is what it says:
Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the first Monday following the thirtieth day of June shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Dominion day.
That is the provision to which I object; I think it should be the Monday nearest the original date. I do not want to be casting obstacles in the way of this bill, but I would move that section 1, clause 2, of the said bill be amended in line 2 thereof by deleting the words "first Monday following the 30th day of June" and substituting therefor the words, "Monday nearest in point of time to the first day of July". I think it would be going a little far to have Dominion day celebrated as far on in July as the 7th, which, as I see it, would be possible under the present act. When the bill first came in I was rather surprised that it did not contain this phraseology. There may be reasons why that should not be done, but it does seem to me this would be an improvement on the language originally employed in the section.


Mr. Hees:: I, for one, do not feel that holding these two holidays on the nearest Monday in any way detracts from their significance as important public holidays. I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Hamilton West that these two holidays should not be forgotten. I see no reason why, if they are held on the nearest Monday, our children or anyone else in the country should not recognize how important they are, and what they stand for. I believe, therefore, that the amendment proposed by the member for Peel is a sensible one. I believe that two extra long week ends in the year are extremely important to the working people because, as the sponsor of the bill has said, they do not get very many holidays. They are limited as to funds. On an ordinary week end it is rather difficult for them to get away with

their families. If it is a long week end, they can travel by train, car or bus to visit friends or relatives, and in that way leave their present surroundings and get a change, which we are told is just as good as a rest. I, for one, think that sort of thing is extremely important in the lives of working people, from the point of view of their morale and their physical well-being.
The second reason I have for thinking this is a good measure is that when you stop an industrial plant for one day in the middle of the week there is considerable time lost and money expended. If these two holidays are held on the week ends, there will be no loss of time or expense involved. Although this last is not an extremely important matter, it is of some significance.
Therefore, I believe that this measure is a good measure from every angle, and I intend to support it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a question?
I should like to have this matter clarified before I vote. As I understand it, the purpose of this is to guarantee a long week end to the working people. So that I can vote intelligently, I should like to know whether this will interfere with the long week ends now enjoyed by the working people from two provinces, that is from Thursday to Tuesday of each week.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be in the house a general impression that there is not very much harm in this bill, and that it does not make very much difference what happens to it or upon which day we celebrate these two particular holidays known as Victoria day and Dominion day. I believe it goes further than that. I am inclined to agree with the member for Hamilton West that it does take away from us the spirit of loyalty and patriotism for king and country that has characterized our people over the ages. There are things happening today, and happening right under our noses, that we do not always observe. One of them is the thing I have been talking about, the destruction of our loyalty to our own country in favour of a loyalty to some wider thing that nobody knows anything at all about. As I see it, that is the seriousness of the bill.
Let me take up one or two of the arguments that have been advanced. The sponsor of the bill has laboured a little bit in suggesting that he is now championing the cause of the workingman by giving him a longer week end twice in the year. If that is all the hon. member can do for the workingman, I would suggest he go back home.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing?


Ernest George Hansell: It is good, Mr. Chairman, for a speaker to pause in order that he may gain the reaction to his remarks. Very often that reaction is manifested by the remarks that come from here and there in the house. It is an interesting thing.
I am all for the labouring man too, Mr. Chairman, but if my hon. friend's argument is logically sound, why single out just two holidays in the year? Why not make all holidays on Monday? The member for Temiscouata, who apparently for this evening at least has been relegated to the back benches, is in favour of the bill. Supposing we extended the bill to include some other holidays in the year? For instance, what about Good Friday? Supposing we celebrated Good Friday on the Monday, would that suit my hon. friend? I fancy it would not, yet there is more justification for changing some of these holidays to a Monday than those days which are the actual birthdays of a king, queen, prime minister or whoever it may be. Would the hon. member like to have Christmas day celebrated on the Monday after the twenty-fifth of December rather than on its historical date? You might just as well. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence whatever that our Lord was born on December 25. If my hon. friend's argument is sound, why not follow it for all holidays throughout the year?
As for being good and kind to those who have not got the wherewithal to take any extended holiday, they say they will be good to them and give them these two longer week ends. Let us be good to them in something worth-while, such as bringing economic conditions to the point where they can afford two or three weeks' holiday every year. That is the thing my friend should be furthering. In most labour circles today employees get holidays with pay.
There is one other matter, Mr. Chairman, which I should like to mention. The member for Fort William is in the same profession in private life as I am, and I usually like to come to his rescue. I am sure he did not mean what he said tonight when he said he believed the labouring man needed to go to his place of worship on Sunday, and take advantage of the holiday on Monday. If he knows human nature, as I believe he does and as we all do, the reason for the long week end is not to encourage that man to attend his place of worship on Sunday, but to encourage him to go fishing two days instead of one. Once again, Mr. Chairman, 1 am going to say that there is more danger in this bill than meets the eye. Personally, I am against this bill. Why keep juggling the holidays of the year around on the merest and tiniest pretext? I do not suppose people will ever celebrate my
Statutory Holidays
birthday; but if they do, I want them to celebrate it on my birthday and not on some other day.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: It is only a matter of clarifying the situation. I hope he has not forgotten the fact that the king does not celebrate his birthday, so far as Canada is concerned', on the day on which he was born. There is some six months between the two days.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, I realize that; but it does not outweigh the argument. Perhaps we do not celebrate his birthday on the day on which he was born, and maybe we should. Personally I would rather celebrate the king's birthday on his birthday than at some other time. That is my position. I am not satisfied that there is not just a little bit of intrigue behind the bill. I recommend that it be killed.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I must rise and answer the suggestion made by the hon. member who has just spoken with regard to intrigue. There is no intrigue at all. To any hon. members who think that there is any semblance of disloyalty shown, may I say that they are talking to the wrong cookie pusher when they talk to me. Together with five of my brothers I happen to have upheld democracy for three and a half years in the first world war, and I take second place to no one in this chamber in that regard. More than that, as far as changing the other days that are holidays is concerned, I might add that if my hon. friends who are opposed to this bill would read up the Interpretation Act they would find that it sets out specifically when those days must be celebrated. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that no Christian holidays are touched in this bill of mine, and they never will be. More than that, the Interpretation Act guards against any such measure being taken in connection with those other holidays that have been spoken of. Speaking personally and on behalf of a great many people throughout Canada and many who are in this chamber, I say: Let us forget about this bogey of democracy and patriotism because it is all bosh so far as the argument against this bill is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lorne MacDougall: Make no mistake about that. I am as patriotic as anybody. There is no question of trying to celebrate something in an aversive manner. I hope that the committee may give sufficiently serious consideration to passing this bill without the amendment.

Statutory Holidays


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I propose to vote against this bill for a reason that has not yet been given. Apparently it is assumed that few people can ever get away for the week end, that they all spend their week ends quietly at home, and that this is a measure whereby people will be able to get a couple of extra week ends and have a nice quiet time. My experience is that there is a large number of people now-far too many, in my opinion, for my comfort or anyone else's- who go away for week ends. What a time they have, when you consider what happens! They cut into Friday afternoon. They take long drives into the country. They arrive at their country place and find everything in disorder. Then they have an unquiet Saturday and Sunday. On Monday they start back again. My experience with these week ends is that people arrive back thoroughly exhausted and need two or three days to get rested up. If there is anything in that suggestion, it seems to me it is a consideration which should be taken into account before hon. members give their vote.
I should also like to say that I have some feeling-not on the ground exactly that the hon. member for Macleod gave-which may be a silly sentimental feeling, that these days might continue to be celebrated on the actual days involved. But I certainly do not wish to say that in such a way that it arouses the slightest feeling of my having the slightest criticism except, as I say, from the point of view I first mentioned, namely the undesirability of having more people go away and exhaust themselves on week ends.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should just like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peel. He did not take the words out of my mouth, for they had already been uttered; but he did take the words off my sheets of paper here. I was drafting a similar amendment. May I at this moment, Mr. Chairman, avoid getting into the heated part of the argument, namely as to whether this bill passes at all or not. I would suggest that for a few moments those who are for the bill as well as those who are against it might consider the question: If the bill is going to pass, which way do we want it to read?
In the form in which it is before us as moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, Dominion day would be celebrated between July 1 and July 7. In the way in which it is proposed by the hon. member for Peel it would be celebrated between June 28 and July 4. It seems to me that the latter is preferable. At the moment I am not arguing whether we have the bill at all or not. But if we are going to have it, let us have it
[Mr. MacDougall.l
on the Monday nearest in point of time to the actual day on which confederation was enacted. The same suggestion would apply with regard to the 24th of May. The wording suggested in clause 2 by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard would mean that the 24th of May would be celebrated at varying dates from May 24 to May 30. But if we accept the amendment to clause 2 which I presume the hon. member for Peel would make-and if he would not, I would-that would mean that the 24th of May would be celebrated between May 21 and May 27. In no case would the day of celebration be more than three days away from the actual day itself. I submit that it is better to be three days or less away from the actual day than to be six days away. I am not going to get worked up even about the difference between the amendment and the motion. I do not think that we need to get heated up about this matter or to use such words as "bosh" or other words that may have been in people's minds. For the moment I submit that we should give serious consideration to the terms of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Peel.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: As to the amendment, I think the hon. member for Peel has overlooked one important matter. All the public school examinations in the higher grades, and a good many of the university examinations, take place towards the end of June.


Gordon Graydon: That must be the summer course.


Alan Carl Stewart: The students have to travel home the last few days in June and sometimes the last day in June; I refer to those that are attending university.


Gordon Graydon: That is the summer course.


Alan Carl Stewart: No. That is the general course in our public schools in Saskatchewan. Our children are not through their examinations in the final grade until the last week in June. I have sent four of them through and I should know what I am talking about. In addition, those who are attending college at Winnipeg from Saskatchewan finish up only in time to get home on the first of July. Those who are attending ladies' schools in Winnipeg are in about the same category. I note the remarks made by the learned hon. member for Greenwood. He says that when you go out on a holiday you get exhausted and played out. That is all right for the hon. member for Greenwood to say because he is naturally slim and can keep his shape. But some of the rest of the members in this chamber who are cooped up in law offices all the time have not been able to get out with

our families as much as we should, and we gradually have lost our shape. If we had had that long week end that tendency would possibly have been to some extent curtailed. I therefore feel that I can support this bill, Mr. Chairman. It will not interfere with the principles of anybody. I find that on Armistice day certain people who lost friends overseas are always out. On church holidays those who believe in their church go to the proper place. Some go fishing, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod, on the extra day. But they usually do not catch anything on that extra day anyway. I am supporting the bill as it originally stands.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Having listened attentively to the mover of this bill and the fair member on the opposite side of the house lock horns with the famous member for Temiscouata, it gave me great pleasure, qnd also gave our famous Barbara Ann Scott, now sitting in the diplomatic gallery, and her party great pleasure.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one word; I am for the bill because the sponsor looks forward to the holiday on the following Monday. I am against the amendment of the hon. member for Peel, because he goes both ways, forward and backward.


Mr. Herridge:: I did not intend to say anything in this debate; but most hon. members will acknowledge the fact that as a socialist I certainly have the interests of the working people of this country at heart.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: That does not follow at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say this, if my good friends opposite will give me an opportunity. In this matter I am very sympathetic to some of the points of view expressed by the hon. members to my right. We should give careful consideration to what appears to some hon. members to be a fairly light matter. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who introduced this bill, did so with the best intentions and wants it to serve a good purpose, but I am not convinced, Mr. Chairman, that making provision in this way for just two extra long week ends is justified, without finding out public opinion of the suggested change. I do not think it is worth upsetting the longtime habits, traditions and practices of fourteen million people without further consideration.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Victoria day.
Statutory Holidays
Gordon Graydon: You are going too fast for me, Mr. Chairman. I have lost my amendment. I want to move another amendment. I move:
That clause 2 of section 2 of the said bill be amended in line 2 thereof by deleting the words "Monday following the twenty-third day of May" and substituting therefor the words "Monday nearest in point of time to the twenty-fourth day of May."
I made a little better job of my handwriting on this and I hope this amendment will finally go through.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gillis:: We cannot hear very well down here, and I really did not understand what you were saying, sir. I should like to be clear about it. Would you mind reading it again?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Mr. Graydon moves:
That clause 2 of section 2 of the said bill be amended in line 2 thereof by deleting the words "Monday following the twenty-third day of May" and substituting therefor the words "Monday nearest in point of time to the twenty-fourth day of May."


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I listened with
a lot of attention to the deliberations on this bill. As perhaps only one of the very few workingmen of the house-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Since when?


Clarence Gillis: -may I say that the reasons advanced as to why we should make this change at this time do not impress me very much. I am in agreement with what was said by my deskmate a few moment ago. I remember that during the last war for production reasons many of the statutory holidays of this country were dispensed with altogether. Armistice day was done away with, and so forth. I am not unmindful of the fact that the government is now going into a huge defence program. It is going to require a lot of manpower, and there may be a lot of overtime work. I am also aware of the fact that most of the industries of this country today work a five-day week. They are not working on Saturdays. I did not look at the calendar, and have not had much chance to go over the implications of this bill; but you could run into this. The holidays that you are wanting to change now could very well fall on a Saturday, a day that is not producing anyway. If you lay the holiday over until Monday you will have two days of non-production in a row. I do not think that sufficient attention has been given to this matter by anybody in the committee to make any kind of intelligent decision, and I do not think the bill should go through at this time. I believe the bill shsuld lie over tonight to give the press an opportunity to comment on it and to get some

Emergency Powers Act reaction from the people of this country as to whether they want us without any inquiry or consultation to change the statutory holidays of this country.
I do not claim to be a great patriot, but it does give me a kind of funny feeling to think that hon. members on the short notice that we have had are going to change the day that was fixed to celebrate the birthday of this country. Dominion day means something to a lot of people in Canada, and I am not prepared at this time to vote in favour of the bill. It should be laid to one side for some time, some study given to it and the reaction of the public obtained.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It being nine o'clock, shall I report progress?
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to empower the governor in council to do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada subject to the restrictions enumerated in the said measure.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, we Social Crediters have always been champions of the free way of life, about which the leader of the opposition spoke this afternoon. Under normal circumstances we believe that the people generally protect themselves and exercise sufficient controls of their own, especially in peacetime, without very much, if any, interference on the part of government; but it must be realized that we are now living in a time of emergency when a good many of our people have been bereft of the means of protecting themselves, and not only themselves but their economic interests.
In the circumstances I believe that no reasonable person could expect us to go through the anxious days ahead, through what the Prime Minister intimated might be an indeterminate period of difficulty without some controls at least.


I believe that the people generally are calling at this time upon the government for controls, particularly price controls. I think the government should respond to that call. As a matter of fact, the government should have moved a year and a half ago to halt the serious decline in the purchase value of the Canadian dollar and restore it to a fair level. I have said already in other debates during this session that there are some measures that could have been taken at the time-I refer to as far back as a year and a half-which would have prevented the rather serious inflationary condition we face today.
It seems impossible to get by with less than over-all price and wage controls. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) expressed the opinion just before the dinner hour that it will be necessary not only to establish price ceilings but to make an effort to roll back prices. While I am in agreement with at least part of what my hon. friend said I think we shall have to be careful how we undertake to roll back prices. It seems to me that that process might involve such things as the subsidizing of imports, which I suggest would be pretty difficult to do.
You would have to give considerable thought to the primary producer of this country. In the rolling back process we might hurt the primary producer seriously. The primary producer comes nearer to receiving a fair return for his production in times of fairly high prices. That seems to be the history in this country. Rather than attempt to roll back the price level in one stroke, or even in a series of quick strokes, it might be better to turn to the use of subsidies. I am convinced that subsidies will become necessary if we find that we have to impose any comprehensive system of controls. Great as the cost may prove to be, I believe that that cost will be fully justified. Certainly it was justified during world war II. As my hon. friend who spoke before me so well said, the government can ensure that the cost of subsidies is kept within reason if they couple with them sound financial technique.
The government has indicated the intention to balance its budget as one means of combating the inflationary situation. We know that that may be effective for a while, perhaps for one or two years; but if the international situation begins to deteriorate and we have to siphon off more of our production for preparedness, I suggest that the government may then find it impractical to balance the budget by taxation and borrowing from the savings of the people. In that case, rather than borrow from the chartered banks as they did in world war II the government should pay whatever subsidies are

required to bring consumer price levels down to a fair level out of new purchasing power created for that purpose by the government's own agencies and spent into circulation rather than lent.
In order to stabilize Canadian prices in the situation we now face, we Social Crediters urge the government that in the bill to be brought in following this resolution consideration be given to the immediate imposition of these six points. We believe that they constitute a program that would take care of the price situation fairly well. In the first place, we believe that it would be necessary to impose over-all price and wage controls. I am persuaded somewhat by the argument of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that there exists already a certain amount of wage control in that certain contracts have been made covering periods up to two years. Following the first step I have suggested there should be an adjustment of prices to ensure a fair profit, and an adjustment of wages to bring them into conformity with the adjusted price level.
The third step should be the bringing of farm prices into parity with the adjusted price level. Farmers have often been accused of taking more than their share out of the cost of food products, particularly during the past year or two. They have been blamed for the high prices of meat, eggs, milk, butter, cheese and any number of things, but an examination of the facts will disclose that during the period since the war farm income has not kept pace with rising costs of the things the farmer has to buy. It has been established recently that the farm population of this country received no more than 15 per cent of the national income when it composes at least 25 per cent of the total population of the country. That is not parity. The farmer has been squeezed between pyramiding costs and the more or less controlled prices of his production. Something must be done for this very important part of our population. I can think of no better way to do this than to establish a parity relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices of things the farmer has to buy.
The fourth important step that should be taken is the adoption of a system of consumer subsidies in order to maintain the purchasing power of the low income groups so they may be able to buy the necessities of life. These subsidies should be paid as far as possible out of new purchasing power and when it is necessary to expand the purchasing power of the country, rather than to go to the chartered banks to borrow.
The fifth important point to consider would be the rationing of commodities in short supply whose production cannot be increased.
Emergency Powers Act That Is the only fair way of seeing that all people get their fair share of things in short supply. We know that people do not like rationing, and I hope it will not be necessary during this period ahead; but if it is let us have a program that is fair, just and equitable.
The sixth important point to consider is the giving of every possible encouragement to increasing the production of wanted goods, stressing particularly those things which are necessary for our protection and for total preparedness. It would be tragic if we got into a period of global war and found that we had not induced the production of many things which we could produce but which were found to be in short supply and which could not be obtained from other parts of the world. We think that this six-point program would help Canadians through any difficult period that might be ahead with a minimum dislocation of their economy and with a minimum of suffering.
Let me conclude by offering two simple warnings to the government. I think it can truthfully be said that whenever in the past it has been found necessary to centralize power in the central government in order to meet an emergency there has been a tendency to make at least some part of the program* permanent. We should guard against that. The centralization process is the negation of true democracy. We ought to be careful to see to it that whatever powers are transferred-I am thinking now particularly of the transfer of powers from the provincial to the dominion jurisdiction-they ought to be fully returned when the emergent situation has passed. We should not wait too long because such things have a habit of indurating to the point of fixation.
The second point is that it may be necessary for the government to set up boards in this system of controls to meet the emergency. Everybody hates the thought of boards, bureaux, and all that sort of thing, but we cannot seem to get along without some of them at any rate. Let me appeal to the Prime Minister and the government in this way. Whatever boards we find it necessary to set up, let us get good men to fill those positions rather than dictators. The quality of the men whom we put on those boards will determine largely whether or not the public will accept the whole program that has to be imposed. Surely any man who has the interests of his fellow man at heart, any man who has the confidence of the people, is above reproach and is fair in all that he does, would be the kind of man to fill a position on one of these boards.
Let us be careful not to get men who, by their dictatorial methods, will not be able to

Emergency Powers Act keep the people satisfied and help them to get through this period. Especially let us be careful not to get men who have personal axes to grind. I am afraid that the experience of world war II was such as to make some of us a little bit afraid that there are still some men with axes to grind in Canada who would love to secure positions as directors on these boards. I should think that the Prime Minister and the government would feel much encouraged by the unanimity in the house on the principle of the resolution now before us. It ought to be an encouragement for them to go forward and do a good job, and we expect that they will.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, so much of the discussion in this debate concerning the anti-inflation fight has centred on one particular method of meeting the problem that I feel impelled to enter the debate in the hope of setting the problem in perspective as I see it. We have not yet seen the bill foreshadowed in the resolution. For my part I think there is very grave likelihood that a debate of this kind in anticipation of the bill may not be too profitable. It is very likely to become a rather doctrinaire debate. It may be too that the bill will contain some surprises. For my part I am interested in seeing it, examining it, and particularly in studying the safeguards that it may contain.
Let me say at once that, having regard to the existence of a very grave state of emergency, an international emergency as it has been called in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and others, the necessity of some such measure as the one foreshadowed in the resolution is, I think, acknowledged. Nevertheless the powers proposed to be vested in the governor in council by the bill must be examined with care in relation to their proposed use, the intended manner of exercise of them, and the extent and nature of the emergency. It seems to me this is a time when parliament must exercise and observe its duty of vigilance, recognizing, of course, that if we are in the twilight of war we must be prepared to take measures commensurate with the emergency.
Today the Prime Minister has very properly put aside the War Measures Act as a vehicle for meeting the present situation. I am sure that all hon. members will approve the course he has proposed and also his reasons for it. There are, of course, other reasons that the Prime Minister might have assigned because it is perfectly obvious that no one holding the views which the Prime Minister has expressed on several occasions could possibly invoke the War Measures Act. As you will recall, that act permits the issue of a proclamation by His Majesty under


authority of the governor in council in the event of war or apprehension of war, invasion or insurrection. It is quite obvious that if the Prime Minister still does not expect to see war in his lifetime-and we hope he is right; we all share that hope most earnestly- or if he is still quoting odds of fifty to one against war in his lifetime, then there is no apprehension of war that would justify the present government in invoking the War Measures Act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On a point of order, does the hon. member think that is a fair way of putting it-still quoting odds of fifty to one against war in his lifetime? I do not think that is worthy of the hon. member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will readily say to the Prime Minister, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said to him in the debate on the address, that I am quite certain more has been made of the Prime Minister's remarks than he ever intended.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member knows I never made any such remark as fifty to one against war in my lifetime.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What the Prime Minister did was to accept odds that were being mentioned to him at the time, and which were apparently understood by those who were questioning him in that way, and certainly by those who reported the observation of the Prime Minister. I have said that we share the hope the Prime Minister has expressed. We all share the hope that he will not see war in his lifetime. That is the earnest prayer of us all. I think I have made that perfectly clear. If there is apprehension of war the War Measures Act could be invoked!. The house will welcome the assertion by the Prime Minister of the intention of the government not to use the War Measures Act to meet the present situation.
On the subject of the existence of an emergency the house has heard some statements from the government that have been somewhat belated but are received now as some recognition of reality. I have not forgotten the occasion in the special session of last September when I found it impossible to get from two senior members of the cabinet any expression of opinion on the question whether or not a state of emergency existed. I tried to get an expression of opinion from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) but he was too coy to answer such a question. He turned it over to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who declined to answer, and there we had the situation as it existed last September.
What is the subject matter of the bill? The discussion today, including the statement of the Prime Minister, has treated it as relating

principally, if not entirely, to the battle against inflation. We are not fully informed now whether the bill includes more powers than those designed to provide economic weapons. We will look to the bill with interest to see if it contains other powers than those intended to provide the government with such weapons.
I am not going to spend more time of the house in discussing the imminent and very threatening dangers of inflation. It is not simply that the cost of living index has risen to 172-5. Perhaps more striking in that respect is the fact that in recent weeks the rapidity of rise has been greatly accelerated. The dangers are imminent; the dangers are very great and threatening. In his speech this afternoon I think the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was not too strong in his statement that soaring inflation, bearing as it does upon the pockets of those of very limited means and income, is a great weapon in the hands of the communists, whether they be communists of the Kremlin or their tools in Canada.
I thought the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might have been more direct in his statement today in regard to the existence of inflation. When he wanted to speak about inflation it seemed to me he mentioned "what is called inflation" or "what some people call inflation." I think it is time the Prime Minister made up his mind whether it is inflation or not. I believe most of us, certainly those Canadians who feel the pinch of high prices against low incomes, think there is inflation today. That is not to say it has run its course, but certainly today we have a very uncomfortable measure of inflation.
I said at the outset it seemed to me that in this debate the discussion has been concentrated on only one of the measures currently put forward as weapons to meet the menace of inflation. I do not think we shall be honest with ourselves or with the people of Canada if we allow attention to be unduly concentrated on the matter of price controls or other controls, in summoning to our aid all available weapons to combat inflation. Let us have regard to certain inescapable facts. It may be that we are going to have price control, but let us be fair and appreciate that hopes much too high are being held out for the benefits that may be expected from price control in the situation with which we are confronted today. This is not the situation of 1941. If we are to have price controls, whether of a selective nature or an over-all nature; whether we are going to have controls like those we had during the war or some different kind of controls, let us be quite honest with ourselves and with 80709-341
Emergency Powers Act the people in pointing out that today, unlike 1941, we start with a very high price level.
Then even those who are clamouring most vigorously for controls over prices recognize that they must be prepared to take some action with respect to wages and salaries. I for one am not prepared to give support to measures that contemplate a freeze of wages or salaries. That would perpetuate grave inequalities that presently exist. And looking at some of the things that are already under price control, let us remember that the existence of measures of control has not prevented increases in price. I come from the city of Toronto. The price of milk there is a very serious matter for the householders, particularly those with children; yet we have price control over milk. It has not prevented price increases. It is the same with the freight rates charged by the railways and the rates charged by the Bell Telephone Company. These organizations have had to go before a government tribunal and prove their need for increases, and they have been given those increases.
So let us be quite frank and recognize that if widespread controls over prices are coming, the situation today is very different from that of 1941. In all candour with ourselves and with the people of Canada we have to observe a measure of caution in holding out brave and rosy hopes as to the results of the application of such measures today. The need for some caution in respect to these hopes has been recognized by those who had much to do with the administration of controls during the last war. They caution us against expecting too much under present conditions.
Let us remember also that the farmers are not satisfied with the prices they are receiving for certain of their products today. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture was before the government a few days ago asking for an increase in the price of domestic wheat, for the raising of the butter floor price, and an increase in the floor price on bacon. These are factors that have to be taken into consideration. Today the farmer feels the pressure of rising prices for the things he has to buy. So if we are going to start on a general system of controls we must remember that the farmer is not satisfied with the prices he is receiving for some of his products today.
Look at what some of the former controllers have said in recent days. Perhaps the most recent is the statement by Mr. Graham Towers in the 1950 annual report of the Bank of Canada, which has received some attention in the press. I should like to read a few relevant sentences from page 15 of that report,
524	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act to draw attention to the sequence in which Mr. Towers proposes that direct controls might be resorted to. He begins by saying:
Fiscal and monetary measures plus increased savings, on a sufficient scale to bring total demand and supply into approximate balance, are essential prerequisites for stability, but they may not be enough in themselves to maintain reasonable stability under all conditions. If defence expenditure became so great that it was humanly impossible to finance it on a pay-as-you-go basis, or if at an earlier stage financial measures designed to produce a fair allocation of the burden did not command public understanding and support, it might become necessary to make increasingly general use of direct controls in order to back up fiscal and monetary measures, despite the dangers to economic efficiency and personal freedom inherent in such controls.
The sequence of the measures to which Mr. Graham Towers refers there is worthy of note. Let us recall, too, that we have had statements from those who were charged with the responsibility of enforcing these controls during and since the war, to the effect that this particular expedient of the application of price controls of various kinds is not a solution to the problem. It is an expedient that may have to be resorted to in given circumstances; but as Mr. Kenneth Taylor, who was the last chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, said last November, price control is like trying to cure a fever by fixing the thermometer. In a statement which has been frequently referred to, Mr. Donald Gordon did not put this particular expedient for meeting the problem of inflation on any higher level than the frying pan, in comparing it with the evils it was designed to combat. Then there is Mr. Edgar Burton, who was one of the important controllers during the war, and who on February 6, said in a speech at Montreal:
The straitj acket of a maximum price and wage ceiling, with all the administrative difficulties, is no answer to the degree of inflation we are facing in 1951. All a price and wage ceiling ever has done is to suppress and postpone the ultimate reckoning.
We also remember the statement by the Prime Minister in his address to the Canadian Construction Association last year, in which he pointed to the difficulty of massing public support in peacetime behind measures which in wartime have depended for their success upon general public support. He said:
In peacetime the government of a free nation which attempted to control and regulate the whole economy would threaten freedom itself.
The purpose of governmental intervention- in peacetime should be to foster economic conditions in which initiative and enterprise will flourish.
Because government directed many aspects of our lives, with conspicuous success, in wartime, is no reason for assuming such direction would be successful in peacetime. We have ample evidence that in countries where the peacetime economy is rigidly controlled, prosperity and a high standard .of living do not necessarily follow.
IMr. Fleming.]

Indeed, the kind of action required to make a wartime economy successful has, in many cases, to be reversed in peacetime.
It seems to me the accuracy of that statement is unchallengeable. Therefore we are confronted with the question: are the conditions we face today typical of peacetime or of wartime? That brings us to what seems to me to be the inescapable conclusion that -the success of a program of the kind that has been proposed in this debate will depend upon the extent to which the public mind has grasped the dangers of the present situation and the nature of the present emergency, and that will require the kind of clarion call on the part of the government for which my leader has been asking since the opening of this session, and before. Until that clarion call comes we may expect that in certain areas and with certain people in this country, perhaps a good many of them, there is not as effective and widespread an appreciation of the existence of the present emergency as will be required to make this particular proposed expedient as effective as some seem to expect it to be.
Now, sir, because I said I hoped to try to state this problem in its perspective, and because there are many other expedients that have to be considered, I propose to deal briefly with them and point to the responsibility of the government in relation to them. Some of these are perhaps expedients like the one that has been discussed in this debate. Others of them can claim to be solutions to inflation. Because the government has been so late in wakening up to the dangers of the situation, it may be that the application of some of these measures today would not be nearly so efficacious as if they had been applied some time ago. The whole approach of the government to this question has been a very leisurely one. It has been ineffective. It has been marked by a sort of fatalism, the kind of fatalism [DOT] revealed by the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in which he seemed to regard the existence of inflation in the United States as making inflation in Canada inevitable.
I am going to touch upon half a dozen of those means that have been largely overlooked by the government. The first, of course, and most important, is the control of credit. It was with no little amazement that we followed the course of the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in the debate on the address when my colleague the member for Toronto Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) was dealing with this subject. The Minister of Finance, with some apparent degree of consternation, questioned the member for Greenwood in a manner indicating that the Minister of Finance was not aware that the Bank of

Canada had power to take measures to control credit. He suggested that, after all, that was not quite the function of the Bank of Canada, to undertake the control of credit extended by the chartered banks of Canada.
I believe the remarks made by the Minister of Finance since that time, particularly those made on February 16 in reply to a question by the member for Greenwood, do seem to indicate that the minister is now aware that the Bank of Canada has means to control the credit extended by the chartered banks of Canada. This power has been wielded in times past. It certainly was wielded in 1948, as those of us who had the unfortunate experience of sitting on that House of Commons select committee on prices were then reminded by Mr. Towers. The powers have been exercised since, as the Minister of Finance indicated. Those powers have not been exercised as effectively or as soon as they ought to have been. They would have been efficacious if they had been exercised, and could have prevented this runaway with credit.
As a matter of fact, the latest statistical summary of the Bank of Canada, for January, 1951, shows that between December 31, 1949, and December 31, 1950, there was an increase of over half a billion dollars in bank loans and non-government investments in Canada. The figures increased from $3,419 million to $3,950 million. There is the explanation for a lot of our inflation.
In the second place, we have the government's resort to the increase in money supply. I am not going to spend more time on that. At page 297 of Hansard the Minister of Finance admitted that the government in effect, by borrowing $200 million, had increased the money supply to that extent. The same issue of the summary of the Bank of Canada of January, 1951, indicates this tremendous increase in the totals in the various components of money supply. Total currency and active bank deposits, inactive chartered bank notice deposits and government of Canada securities increased from $18,077 million at December 31, 1949, to $18,775 million at December 31, 1950-an increase of nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in that year.
The third method or factor, sir, to which adequate resort has not been had is the reduction of governmental expenditures on non-defence items. The Minister of Finance, I shall give him credit for this, in his recent speech did indicate that this was one of the most promising measures, and certainly one to which resort ought to be had. We complain, sir, that resort has been had to it by the government too late. We shall look for
Emergency Powers Act some of the reports that are to be tabled during this session for the proof of the determination of the government really to apply this method. We will put before the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the government these questions. If you are really earnestly seeking to reduce non-defence items, why do you continue to refuse the establishment of a select committee of the house on estimates, where estimates could really be given a sufficient scrutiny? Why do you also continue to refuse the establishment by the house of a select committee on national defence estimates? You cannot square with the professed determination of the government to reduce non-defence expenditures its obdurate refusal to give the house the means of accomplishing that end.
The fourth method, sir, of course,, in regard to taxation involves the adoption of the pay-as-you-go policy. I just have a suspicion that the Minister of Finance, when he brings in his budget, is going to say to some members of the house: You advocated taxing the people, taking more out of their pockets than is actually needed to meet expenses of the government this year on the theory the government can better look after that surplus for the people than the people can look after it themselves. While approving fully of the pay-as-you-go policy, I wish to remind the Minister of Finance that there are some forms of taxation that are directly inflationary. Those taxes that are hidden, indirect, do raise prices. The increase is passed on to the consumer. Those are not taxes that should be resorted to at a time like this to combat inflation.
In the fifth place, there are those two methods that go hand in hand that depend upon the government reminding the citizens of this country of their personal responsibility. I submit that the government has an important responsibility to bring home to the individual in this country his own personal responsibility, and that is a duty in which the government has lamentably failed hitherto. The Minister of Finance did mention the necessity of this in his speech. But oh, he did it in such a coy way, such an inoffensive way, such a feeble way. He talked about the necessity for increasing production. He talked about the necessity for consumer restraint.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows, as the Minister of Finance said on page 296, that the fundamental cure for inflation is increased production. Yes, of course, it is the most effective method of combating inflation. Then, when it came to grappling with
52G	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act that subject, what does the Minister of Finance do? He just peters out and says, on page 296:
A good deal can be done In that field by increasing efficiency, by getting more elderly people into the working force, by employing more women, by all of us-
Now, note this. If this is not a wishy-washy statement!
... all of us working a bit harder and if necessary a bit longer.
One can just imagine that accomplishing anything in rousing the people of this country to the necessity of increasing production as one of the serious hopes we have of combating inflation! Then, what does he say about the other method? The other method of course is restraint on the part of the consumer. The Minister of Finance, if you please, wihds up a speech that was good in places and very feeble in other places, by saying this, as recorded on page 299 of Hansard- "if each individual Canadian will make up his mind that he is going to work" . . . this time he does not say "a bit harder", but he says "perhaps a little bit harder". What can you expect from a government that is offering wishy-washy, anaemic advice of that kind to the people of Canada?


An hon. Member:: What would you do?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would do what the leader of the opposition has been calling upon the government to do, namely give a clarion call to the people of Canada; first of all, tell them of the seriousness of the dangers that confront this country, and second, of the need for every individual in this country mobilizing his effort to combat inflation by those two methods that lie within his power: Consumer restraint and increased production. To call upon the people of Canada for anything less than that at a time like this is to abdicate and to fail in the duty of government in days of grave danger. The procrastination that they have evidenced and the kind of fatalistic resignation to inflation that we have seen in the government remind one of the expression used by Mr. Churchill when he said:
So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.
Then we come to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). What was his contribution to the needed clarion call to the people of Canada? Talk about fatalistic resignation! He went a step further and indulged in what was unquestionably the most cynical remark and the most cynical attitude yet exhibited in the House of Commons. When dealing with this necessity for taking measures to combat


inflation, dealing with this very subject of price control, he just sits back with a grin on his face, if you please, in the face of the dangers that are confronting the people of Canada, and says about the people against whom controls might have been applied: "They are all set." What a response! What a conception of duty on the part of the government! What a rising to a great national emergency! The Minister of Trade and Commerce sits back, smugly smiles and says: "They are all set." There we have more of that fatalistic resignation to inflation on the part of the government. Apparently they are quite prepared to sit there and watch it come, and keep their arms folded all the time. When the government was permitting itself to fall into this attitude of fatalistic resignation, I wonder what the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) had to say? I wonder if he offered to the cabinet council those words that he uttered last year in a notable address, when he said:
We are kidding ourselves to think we can work shorter hours and maintain a higher standard of living and, at the same time, defend our country and help defend the other free nations of the world.
I hope that he was there and I hope that he called upon his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to rouse themselves out of their apathy and meet the danger that confronts our country.
Something has been said today, Mr. Speaker, about stand-by powers. Let us remember, sir, that the house is in session; and presumably the house is going to be in session for some time. At this stage, in these early weeks of the session, surely it is not the time for anybody to put forward a request for merely stand-by powers. Let the government ask us in this bill for powers that are needed to grapple with the present situation; and if we as members of this house are convinced that the government will really use powers that are adequate for the purpose, and will really apply some energy and some resolution to the problem, then the house will not be slow to give to the government powers that will be effectively used.
The nub of the problem is, of course, the use the government is going to make of the powers it is seeking at the hands of parliament. It may be that the government has not fully made up its mind on the subject, and has not yet floundered through the difficulties to reach a decision as to what use it is going to make of the powers sought, if it does get them. Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today was extremely vague on that subject.

Those of us who have in the post-war years in this house sought to bring to bear on the exercise of any special powers enjoyed by the government our conception of responsibility on the part of the government to this house will examine this kind of legislation closely, looking for those safeguards that in times past we have found to be so abundantly necessary.
I submit that this bill ought to contain restrictions or safeguards. In the first place, it should carefully define the emergency. It should carefully define the powers that are sought and the duration of the powers commensurate with the duration of the emergency. In the second place, it should trespass as little as is required to meet the emergency on powers that are, under our constitution, normally held by the provinces. In times of emergency measures of course have to be taken on a national scale. We will examine the bill with that end in view. In the third place, we shall wish to see that the exercise of those powers is carried out with due regard for the responsibility of the cabinet to this house. We will wish to see publication of all orders in council and we will wish an opportunity for review thereof in parliament. We do not wish to see the government blithely legislating, by order in council while parliament is in session, on matters on which parliament itself ought to be legislating. In the fourth place, as to defence of the rights of individuals in this country, rights that have often been ignored under similar legislation in times past, there must be in this bill provisions to safeguard the rights of the individual, so that he will not be denied access to the courts in the assertion of his rights.
In conclusion I say that the presentation of a measure of this kind to parliament necessarily increases the task of parliament; because when parliament is called upon to give to a government extraordinary powers commensurate with the national need in the light of a national emergency, parliament must see to it that the exercise of those powers is carefully supervised. Parliament must be even more vigilant in the giving of those powers, and in the supervision of the exercise of them after they have been given, than it is in normal times. On the opposition will rest a special task in this regard; because unless hon. members supporting the government really rally to their task in this respect it will be left to the opposition members again to see that the exercise of those powers is kept within due bounds, within the terms of the legislation, and within the principle of responsible government.
Edmund Burke once said, "People never give up their liberties but under some
Emergency Powers Act delusion." In vesting extraordinary powers of this kind in the government, it is the duty of parliament to make sure that the rights of the individual in this country are not overlooked:	The right to go to the courts
with his cause, and not to be denied access to the courts. Those are rights that must be safeguarded when parliament comes to legislate in the terms in which it is by this resolution invited by the government to legislate.
I have said that, in the face of an emergency, some powers obviously of an extraordinary nature must be taken. But I say that an inescapable duty rests on parliament to examine those powers, to scrutinize the terms of this legislation and to exercise the utmost vigilance with regard to the exercise of those powers by the government once those powers have been given to it by parliament.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: should like to say a few words about this resolution. Like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I suppose I am going to have to vote for it, but I am going to vote for it not because I think it represents action legislation. As has been pointed out here today on numerous occasions, this, once again, is an example of government stand-by legislation.
What is the purpose of the legislation which is now before us? According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), speaking several weeks ago, the purpose of this legislation is to confer upon the cabinet powers to impose certain price controls and other controls in order to maintain economic stability in this country. We of the C.C.F. party believe that these powers are needed, but we go further. We say that when these powers are passed they should be used immediately. I think that is where we differ primarily from the government.
The government says, "We are going to pass these powers; we may or may not use them." This party says-"we should pass these powers, and we should use them." I think it is agreed in all parts of the house that there is no domestic issue facing parliament today which is as serious as this runaway inflation. Since April, 1946, the cost of living has gone up 52 points. It is so acute, Mr. Speaker, that today we witnessed, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out, I think for the first time in history, the four large trade unions of Canada representing, as he said, one-third of our population, getting together to ask the government for remedial action.
The time has come for this parliament to rush some kind of relief to the Canadian
528	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act consumer. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions in this debate that this is not a new problem. It has been going on for some years, but it has become particularly acute since the Korean war started, this last six or seven months.
What steps has the government already taken to cope with the problem? The steps which have been taken were outlined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I think it was on February 12, when he outlined them briefly to parliament. These steps included most of the standard, orthodox, financial and monetary weapons which economists recommend in fighting inflation. For instance, the minister told us that ordinary expenditures were going to be curtailed. He stated that there would be higher taxes; that the budget would be balanced. He told us how the Bank of Canada had raised their rediscount rate. He related how the Canadian dollar had been released. He informed us that savings are being encouraged; capital expenditures are being discouraged.
With all of these measures this group takes no particular exception. We know that stern fiscal weapons are needed to drain off surplus purchasing power in this country. But this group does say that these measures by themselves will not work unless they are supplemented by price controls.
_ The government has hoped that its antiinflation measures by themselves could keep prices down. Cabinet ministers have told us of their steps to combat inflation; but, as the leader of this party said a short time ago, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the failure of these measures which the government has taken is indicated by the fact that while it has been taking this action, the cost of living has gone up another twelve points. The government has failed so far to deal effectively with the inflation problem.
In view of the dismal failure, why even today is the government so loath and so reluctant to embark upon price control?
On February 8, the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the government intended to ask for wide and comprehensive powers. Can this parliament have any assurance that if we pass this legislation before us, if we give the government the powers that they are asking for, they will be used?
I submit that if past records are any indication we cannot have that assurance. Last year we gave the government authorities which, while not as extensive, were very similar in nature to the ones they are asking for today, and a good many of them they did not use at all.
Can we have any assurance in the future that they will use these powers? Suppose we 

look at some of the statements which the various ministers have made since parliament opened? I think the Prime Minister was the first minister who spoke about these price controls. Among other things he said this, and I am quoting from page 29 of Hansard:
We are constantly considering the situation as it develops, and we feel that it is wise to proceed cautiously.
Again:
There will then be the possibility of providing such controls as it may be apparent would be beneficial.
Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no assurance from these remarks of the Prime Minister that price controls will be brought in.
How long is the government going to "consider" the situation? How long is it going to "proceed cautiously", and what are the circumstances that would make it "advisable" for the government to bring in controls? Certainly the Prime Minister did not give us any indication in his speech two weeks ago or in his speech this afternoon.
The next major speech made by the cabinet regarding price controls was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said in parliament in one breath that the government was seeking wide and comprehensive powers, but in the next breath he went on to tell us that the government had no intention of exercising those powers. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was magnanimous enough to say in his own words that "there is the possibility that events will develop" in such a way that we might use them. What events, Mr. Speaker? I wish the minister would tell us what events. A revolution? Nation-wide strikes? An atomic bomb on Ottawa? Certainly the minister did not give us much of an outline in his speech as to the government's plans for meeting future inflation.
If a fire is raging, the firemen use all the weapons at their disposal to fight that fire. Surely it is sensible for this parliament, in fighting the inflation fire which is raging in Canada today, to use all the weapons which we have at our disposal. Instead, we are acting like a firecrew which goes to a fire and then refuses to turn on the hose. We are refusing to use our chief weapon, namely price controls, to fight this inflation.
I think it is indeed fortunate for the citizens of Ottawa that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not their fire chief; because if he were their fire chief, and if he acted in that capacity in the same manner as he is acting tonight, he would probably rush his crew up with their shiny new trucks to a burning building, line the trucks up, and then

watch the building burn. I am sure he would tell his men something like this. He would say: "Let us watch this fire; let us proceed cautiously; let us consider it; let us analyse it, by all means let us have our trucks ready for any eventuality." But if the minister acted as he is acting tonight, the building would be burned down before his men got to work.
That is exactly what this government is doing tonight, Mr. Speaker. They are watching Canada's inflation fire burn, and they are not turning on their main fire hoses to put it out.
A few days later the Minister of Finance made a speech about controls, and what did he tell us? Well, on page 300 of Hansard, speaking about controls, he told us that the government-
-will use them to the extent that we believe they may be necessary.
To what extent, Mr. Speaker? When will they be necessary? Must the cost of living index go to 185? Must it go to 190? Must it go to 200? The minister did not tell us. He went on-again I quote from Hansard:
This is one of the things you cannot cure by passing a law.
Perhaps the minister is right, but I remember in the war years that they did stop prices going up or they did halt inflation, by passing a law or a series of laws.


Mr. Abbott:: No, they did not.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But I beg to differ; they did.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, they did not.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I say to this parliament-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Concealed it for a while.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -the cost of living index went up very slowly in the war period, compared to the way it is going up today. I say to this parliament that if we pass a law today perhaps we could not stop inflation; but I will venture to say that we could alleviate it a good deal and at least halt the rapidity of price rises. Finally, the Minister of Finance concluded with these words:
I do not believe that a system of over-all price or wage controls would be either desirable or effective at this time.
I suggest that no one can take from such a statement any indication that the passage of the legislation now before us is urgent. There is certainly no assurance that if it is passed it will be used. I say that from the statements made by the ministers it is perfectly obvious that the government does not mean to take concrete action in the way of implementing price controls in the near future. At best this is fence-sitting, pussyfooting, stand-by legislation. It is simply a sop to public
Emergency Powers Act opinion. The government's present policy shows complete reluctance to take action unless forced by the pressure of future events.
I will go further, and say that there is every indication that the government will not bring in price controls under any circumstances, if it can avoid them. Why otherwise would they be letting out all the trained personnel of the wartime prices and trade board? Why otherwise would they be dismissing or transferring these men who should know something about the administration of controls? It does not make sense. Either the government has no intention of bringing in controls in the foreseeable future or it is acting in an unbelievably shortsighted way.
I say that something must be done by this government in the near future to deal with inflation, or Canada is going to face grave and serious labour troubles. We have seen serious strikes in other parts of the world. A similar condition may be closer than many of us think in this country. Canadian labour, whether organized or unorganized, whether of the farm or of the factory, will not stand idly by indefinitely, Watching its earnings and savings vanish needlessly, because their government shrinks from taking decisive action.
I say that through hard, bitter and practical experience most Canadians do not believe that the anti-inflationary policy of the government will be effective, unless it is supplemented by price controls. Therefore this party suggests to government members that they either stop inflation with their own methods, or adopt methods which are suggested elsewhere in the house. I commend to hon. members the words of Charles E. Wilson, the United States defence mobilizer, as reported in Time magazine. Dealing with the United States situation a few weeks ago this great industrialist said:
There is only one answer-controls. I hate the word-so do you. But there is no other way. Voluntary methods will not work. That has been proved. The power of law must be invoked . . . for prices, rents and wages-for whatever controls are necessary to prevent inflation, to promote production for defence, and provide a fair distribution of commodities among all our citizens.
This party concedes that controls are not the final answer. By themselves they will not cure the unbalance between supply and demand. But they will hold the line. They will protect the Canadian citizen while more effective and permanent cures are brought into being. We in this party are under no illusions. Along with controls must come a tough, stern and unpleasant fiscal policy, including above all a steep and heavy program of taxation. Even with the use of all the weapons which we have at our disposal, this parliament may fail to conquer inflation,

Emergency Powers Act but if we refuse to use our most important weapon, then we are almost certain to fail.
I conclude by once again saying that this resolution is no answer to "inflation now". We will vote for it. Nevertheless we would like to hear the government say, specifically: "We want these powers, we need these powers. If you will give them to us, we will use them".


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members who have spoken in this debate I have no choice but to support this resolution. A bill will be based upon this resolution, but of course we know nothing about its contents at the present time. Anything that we say regarding the nature of the proposed legislation must be based upon suggestions which have been thrown out by ministers and by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his speech this afternoon. We have heard that the bill to be brought in following this resolution will be stand-by legislation which will not be used at the present time. The Prime Minister expressed the hope that the presence of the legislation on the statute books would in itself be sufficient to halt rising prices and inflation and render the application or implementation of the provisions of the bill unnecessary.
The Prime Minister admitted that inflation is one of the weapons which our enemy is using and will continue to use in the cold war, but he intimates that the government hesitates to take any definite action on this matter, particularly in the way of price control. Why is it that those men who gave such excellent service to the country and did such an efficient job during the last war in administering price control are now deprecating price control, are now pointing out all the difficulties in the way of price control and telling us that price control will not work now as it worked during that war? Why is it the ministers who were for four years shouting from the housetops the benefits of price control have suddenly changed their minds and are now afraid to touch price control? The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that there was no desire on the part of the government to by-pass parliament. He intimated that any measure of control would require public support in order to be a success. Why do the Prime Minister and the government think that they will not have public support in the administration of a price control policy at this time?
I have a feeling that if members of this house who sit on the government benches were free to express their opinions and the opinions of their constituents they would

express themselves as being in favour of price control at this time. How does it happen that there is almost unanimity among the opposition groups that the emergency we are in today demands price control, while practically everybody on the government side of the house is opposed to price control? I say again that if government members and those sitting on the government benches were free to express their candid opinions on this subject they would now speak in favour of price controls. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told us that representatives of one million workers in this country have asked for price control, and these same representatives assured him that the workers of Canada would support the government in any measure of price control. What is the government afraid of? I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of my neighbour, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).
I really thought we had pushed the Conservatives off the price control fence, and that they had come down on the side of price controls. I must say that anyone reading the speech made a little while ago by the hon. member for Eglinton would find it very difficult to decide whether he is in favour of or against price controls at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His leader had better take him in hand.


Joseph William Noseworthy: He did an excellent
job of balancing himself on that fence, but what I did not like was the insinuation in his speech that only he and his leader were really conscious of and awake to the present emergency. The insinuation was that nobody else was really conscious of the seriousness of the present situation, and that, because we had not followed the advice which he and his leader had given us.
The people of Canada are conscious of the emergency; they are awake. The Prime Minister assured us this afternoon that the representatives of labour gave evidence of their consciousness of the threat of communism in Canada. In a recent poll 75 per cent of the people who were questioned expressed themselves in favour of price controls. Who is it who is opposed to price controls? Who is it that the government is afraid of?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Itself.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Who is it who will not
give support to a government policy of price control? There were some groups mentioned in the report of the royal commission on prices who were referred to as monopolies and near monopolies. I can understand that probably some of them are opposed to price

controls. I would not be at all surprised if the flour milling industry, referred to in that report, is opposed to price controls today. I would not be at all surprised if the management of the packing house industry is opposed to price controls. It is quite possible that the monopoly which manufactures fertilizer is opposed. It is quite possible that the three large manufacturing concerns that have a monopoly on synthetic yarns are opposed. Probably there are others. You know, there was a time when people across Canada referred to the Conservative party as the big business party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have been pushed out now.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Of course that was before they adopted the name "progressive" and before they became progressive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, oh.


Joseph William Noseworthy: In name at least. I
wonder if it is possible that there has been a sort of political revolution going on in big business in the last decade of good times for big business? Is it possible that within the last decade big business has despaired of getting much help from the Conservatives-


Mr. Ferguson:: They will be turning to
the C.C.F. next.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -and they began to shower their material blessings upon the grand old Liberal party?


Jean-François Pouliot: The best party in the world.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have no doubt every
big business in Canada agrees with the hon. member. Is it possible that there is any connection between the support that the government is getting from big business today and their fear that they will not have public support for price controls? Other than that I certainly fail to see any logical reason why a government that was so wedded to price control during four years of the war, a government that did such a good job of price control during those years, should now be so reluctant to embark upon any form of price control.
There is another feature of price control to which I wish to refer. I presume that Mr. Towers, who gave an interview to the Toronto Daily Star on January 31, 1951, was expressing the official attitude of the government towards the present inflation when he referred to the past five years as a "mild inflation". Apparently the government still thinks of inflation as it exists today as a mild inflation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would hate to see what they call the real thing.
Emergency Powers Act


Joseph William Noseworthy: They are asking for legislation that can be used when an emergency arises, when we really get into an inflationary period. So far as most of the ordinary citizens of this country are concerned, the emergency is here now. Inflation is here now, and it is not so mild. I am going to put certain figures on the record again which no doubt have been referred to by other members. Here is how mild the inflation is for those who have to buy food, and a lot of people in Canada have to buy food. In April, 1946, the cost of living index in the cities for food was 135, and in December, 1950, it was 218.8. That is an increase of 83 points or 62 per cent. In other words, the 1946 food dollar was only worth 48 cents in 1950. I think it was the Minister of Finance who took the leader of the official opposition to task for suggesting that Canadian dollars were decreasing in value. It was the Liberal government which, six days before the election of 1945, assured everyone in this country, in practically every newspaper, that if they were elected they would maintain the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. Since then the food dollar in Canada has fallen in value to 48 cents.
The index of rents rose from 112 in April of 1946 to 136, an increase of 21.5 per cent. That is not bad. Fuel and light rose by 31.3 per cent. Clothing rose by 50 per cent. In other words you could have bought two suits in 1946 for what you paid for one in 1950. Home furnishings and services increased by 46 per cent. These increases since April 1, 1946, indicate that this is not a mild inflation but a very real inflation for the people who have to buy food and clothing and home furnishings, and pay rent.
Perhaps a few more figures will bring out this point a little more graphically. I am going to compare the prices of certain specific articles of food in April 1946 with the prices of 1950. Beef has gone up 141 per cent since April, 1946; in other words the dollar with which you buy beef is not worth very much today. Coffee has gone up 127 per cent; veal is up 111 per cent. Even milk is up 79 per cent, notwithstanding the control the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said was exercised over milk prices in Ontario. I have yet to learn what control the government which his party supports has exercised over milk prices in this province. We may get that information from some other Conservative speaker. Flour is up 78 per cent and bread 67 per cent. Those are real increases, which cut into the earnings of every white-collar and industrial worker in the country. They cannot be considered mild.
Then in trying one moment to deprecate price control and the next moment to support

Emergency Powers Act it, the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out that prices had risen in some of those enterprises which were under control. The truth is that the increases in fuel and light, where the rates in many instances are controlled by public ownership and in others by public regulation, were among the lowest of all during the decontrol period. Rents rose only 21 per cent, less than half the increase shown in many other services. That was so because rents remained at least partially under control. The fact is that it is the free enterprise components of the price index in which prices have skyrocketed most. Those components of the price index which were controlled or partially controlled by public ownership or by public regulation of rates increased least of all during the decontrol period. When the government undertook this decontrol policy we were assured that free enterprise would moderate the price increases, that supply and demand would take care of them. Exactly the opposite has been true. In those fields where private enterprise operated uncontrolled we have had the highest telling us of the good things its control period.
The government is a little backward about telling us of the good things its control policy did during the war, I presume because they do not want to undertake controls at the present time. Here is a comparison between the four and a half years during which we were under price control, between December 1941 and April 1945, and the four and a half years we have been under the government's decontrol policy. I will show the difference in food and clothing. During the price control period food prices in the city of Toronto rose nine points. During the four and a half years we have been under government decontrol food prices have shot up 76.5 points. In the city of Winnipeg food prices increased 11 points during the four and a half years we were under control. They increased 85 points during the four and a half years under decontrol. That picture is true in practically every urban centre in Canada. In Vancouver food prices went up 12^ points during the control years and they have gone up 87 points under decontrol.
The situation in regard to clothing is just the same; prices have skyrocketed during the decontrol years. It is often said, particularly by the opponents of price control, that increases in prices are caused by increases in wages that the workers have been receiving. We are told again and again it is because of these demands by trade unions that prices have risen. We are assured that labour is one factor entering into the production of goods which has been responsible for

these prices. What is the truth? According to the dominion bureau of statistics in practically every case rising prices have kept abreast of increases in wages. The highest paid wage earners in Canada today, those in the pulp and paper industry, are just about four dollars per week ahead of where they were in 1946. They have made the largest gains of any industrial workers in this country. Most of the other groups who have made any gains at all have made gains of from one dollar to two dollars per week in real dollars.
Actually, as of July 1, 1950, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, there were 234,000 from among twenty-one industries whose real wages, in terms of purchasing power, showed a decrease in 1950 as compared with 1946. In other words, there were 234,000 people who lost more by rising prices than they gained by their increased wages. In another group of white-collar workers employed in retail, wholesale and finance offices, as of that date there were 271,000 who were worse off in 1950 than they were in 1946. For those 271,000 the rising cost of living had outstripped any increases they had secured in wages to the point where the dollars they received in 1950 would purchase less than the dollars they were receiving for their weekly pay in 1946. There were 214,000 people employed in the retail trade in Canada, white-collar workers, who showed an average gain of only 46 cents per week over their 1946 income. In other words, there were 214,000 people for whom the rising cost of living had absorbed everything they had received by way of wage increases except 46 cents a week. That is the situation so far as the wage earners in this country are concerned.
If you want the picture of what it means to families, what it means to those who are trying to make ends meet these days, you only need to read Jack Scott's column in the Ottawa Citizen. Here one gains the real picture of what this government's mild inflation means to the ordinary citizen. On February 9, 1951, Jack Scott wrote in his column as follows:
Consider the familiar undramatic facts. A letter from a Vancouver woman who has three children and a husband whose take-home income is $166 monthly plus $16 family allowance says: "We dress in rags and hand-me-downs. The boys both need winter coats, but they will have to wait. We get our shoes mended so many times I am ashamed to take them to the cobbler. My husband owns one three-year-old twenty-five dollar suit. He still is using his army shirts and socks. Entertainment, don't make me laugh. If we want to go to a show we have to figure on $3.50 at least counting the baby sitter and carfare. We do most of our going out separately. The niggardly cheese-paring methods with regard to food are what hurts me

most. My children are growing up without knowing the taste of juicy steaks. Pot roast is the best they ever taste, and that not often. Under this regime we cannot even think about saving. We have only just enough in the bank to cover our cheques. We are always broke before pay day.
That is the story, Mr. Speaker, of thousands of families in this country at this time. I have dealt with inflation as it affects labour. Other members in this house have already placed on the record the effect of inflation on profits. I do not think it is necessary at this time for me to add to that. I believe that every one of us is cognizant of the fact that the past five years have been five of the best years the larger enterprises of this country have ever known. If you compare their profits during the decontrol period with the effect of rising prices upon wage and salaried earners, you will have no difficulty in deciding which group this government's policy has favoured. It is evident that this government's policy has, year after year, been supporting those who have been profiting out of the inflationary period, as against the million industrial workers and the farmers who have suffered as a consequence of these rising prices.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why we have such a radical change, such a completely different outlook on the part of government towards this matter now and in 1941. It is true that we are not in an all-out war, but our war expenditures this year will exceed our war expenditures in 1941 when we were in an actual war. The expenditures of the United States, which affect us, are several times greater this year than they were then. They are now $30 billion as compared with $7 billion in 1941. Again and again in this house we have been told that in 1941 approximately 10 per cent of our people were unemployed. Today we have at the most between 3 per cent and 4 per cent unemployed. If the situation in 1941 required the drastic action which the government took at that time, there is every indication that the situation today requires action just as drastic as that taken then. Again, I feel that the government has no reason whatever to believe that the mass of people in this country will not support them in a price control measure now as it did during the war years. I have already pointed out the groups that possibly will not support the government in price control. I ask this government to listen to the appeal of 75 per cent of the people of Canada who answered "yes" when they were asked in the last public poll whether they wanted price control. I ask the government to listen to those who represent a million workers in this country. I ask them to find out what is the honest opinion
Emergency Powers Act of the members sitting on the government benches with regard to this matter. Having done that, I ask them to formulate government policy on that basis and not on what big business in this country wants.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Prime Minister-and I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance is in the chamber with him-what the situation will be under this bill with respect to rent control if the government could be persuaded that the federal authority should stay in that field.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The bill as drafted will be in terms that would permit the governor in council to establish federal rent control if that measure was found to be advisable. But of course any such regulation would have to be brought to the house, under the terms of the bill, and would remain in operation only if the house and the Senate did not by resolution choose to invalidate it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I understand it, at the present time rent control under the existing legislation will expire as at April 30. That is correct, is it not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right; yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, if before that date we could persuade the government that it should stay in the field, it would be possible for federal rent control to continue in effect without any gap?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the government became convinced that that procedure was desirable in the public interest, it would be possible for that to be done under the legislation that is to be proposed, if and when this resolution is adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the answer that the Prime Minister has made, and I realize that he is protecting himself by making it clear that the government has not yet been persuaded, I should like to take just a moment to argue the case.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid that the hon. member will not be able to do it between now and eleven o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not planning to take the twelve minutes that are left. I was hoping that I could persuade the government in a minute or two that this matter is a serious one that should be dealt with in that light. The announcement made by the Minister of Resources and Development a few days ago cannot but have the effect of cutting down the building of new houses. In fact,

Emergency Powers Act I think that was the desired purpose of the announcement, in view of the shortage of materials. With that happening just at a time when rent controls are coming off in some of our provinces and at a time when prices generally are going up, I suggest that we are heading into a situation that is an extremely serious one. I hope that the government will give constant attention to this matter and will reconsider the whole position before April 30.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this measure will enable the government to undertake a national registration?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The measure would be drawn in terms that would permit the government to undertake a national registration; and if that were to be taken merely as a precautionary measure, perhaps the government would take the responsibility of attempting to do it under the terms of this legislation, if and when it is adopted. But the policy of the government will not be to do anything of major importance without coming to parliament and declaring that it is its view that it should be done, and allowing parliament to disagree with the government if it finds that its policy is not the proper one. It is not our intention to get legislation to enable us to do things that we will not take the responsibility of doing publicly in the constitutional manner.


Howard Charles Green: From the answer just given am I to take it that the government would not undertake a national registration without coming back to the house and asking for approval to take that particular step?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The manner in which it
would be put before the house might or might not be that of seeking approval. But it will not be the policy of the government to make any major change in its policies, as they have been announced up to the present time, without coming to parliament and declaring its change of policy and submitting that new policy to parliament. If, for instance, in connection with the census something were to be arranged that might be preparatory to an inventory of the resources of the country, that is something that we would not consider to be a departure from the -announced policies. But if there were to be something new, something that the public would look upon as a major new venture in government policy, we would want to announce that to the house and to take our responsibility before the house.


Howard Charles Green: What the Prime Minister means then is this. There might be some type of registration taken in connection with the census without having that policy approved
[Mr. Knowles.l

by the house; but in so far as what is commonly understood as a national registration is concerned, such a step would not be taken without coming to the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Unless parliament was not in session and it appeared to be something that required urgency; and even in that case my own disposition would be to call parliament, because I think it is preferable that all these matters that are of such great consequence to the nation should be dealt with in the regular constitutional way.


Howard Charles Green: What would the procedure
be with regard to bringing in some system of national selective service?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That would be announced to parliament, and the government would take the responsibility of the verdict of parliament on the propriety of its action.


Howard Charles Green: There would be some legislation required other than this measure we are now considering?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know whether it would really require some legislation, but there would be ample opportunity for it to be considered by parliament and for parliament to make known its views as to whether or not the government was doing the right thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to get this clear, I take it then the way in which parliament would express its approval or disapproval of a course the government proposed to take would not be by voting specifically on that measure but would be simply our being informed by the government that a measure was to be taken, and then we would show either our confidence or lack of confidence in the usual way?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In the bill as drafted any order made in the exercise of these powers would have to be brought before parliament immediately, and would cease to be effective if the houses of parliament resolved that it should not be effective. There will be opportunity for such a resolution to be made and considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, there will be an opportunity to show our disapproval in a positive way?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But if we did not show that disapproval, we would not have the opportunity to show approval?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, we find today that for the consideration of the motion as to whether the Speaker should leave the chair to consider a resolution we used one day of debate; and there are at least six opportunities for

debating any legislative matter. Now, under present conditions it seems to us that these matters should be dealt with expeditiously, but not finally. They should come into force, and if parliament is dissatisfied with them they should cease to operate, but there should not be days and weeks required before they come into force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one other question, Mr. Chairman, do I take it then that there is at least a certain difference between the way in which orders brought in under this act will be pursued and orders brought in under the War Measures Act? In the case of the War Measures Act, an order in council was passed whether parliament was in session or not. It was tabled, and we could kick about it verbally, but that was all. In this instance, there will be provision for parliament to express itself on a substantive motion, if it wishes.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: There is express provision in the legislation that is intended to be put before the house. Of course, it will depend upon the form in * which the legislation is
Emergency Powers Act passed by the house, but in the proposals to be put before the house under this resolution there is provision for the invalidating of these orders by resolution of the Commons and the Senate, which did not exist under the War Measures Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That sounds like an improvement.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. SI. Laurenl thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: Tomorrow is private members' day, and the business will be that provided for by standing order 15.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, February 21, 1951